Stone throwing, tool making, clothing and monuments
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
to virtually any potential carnivorous threat early hominids would face on land. To me,
it's clear that early hominids in the form of even gracile a'piths used these to survive
in those open areas where grazing animals were predated by lions and other large felines
that stalked the open savanna.
The interesting thing in all this is how, merely by proximity, these simple hand sized
stones became early tools. First we all know about stone being used to break open bones to
get at the marrow that. Now how did an ape, with a brain no larger than a chimp, go about
making the connection of breaking bones with stones? He didn't travel any great distance
to get a hand sized stone to break open the bones. The answer is simple and right in front
of you; they used the stones that they threw in the first place in order to take
possession of the carcass. Quite elementary.
As far as making tools from stones. It is my contention that sharp tools were a byproduct
of an even more basic need. The need to have stones that would be of the proper size to
throw. In order to fill this need some ape would eventually begin the practice of through
over sized stones to find handy sized stones. Eventually to would had been noticed that
discarded stones occasionally broke against an outcropping or other stone and made for a
good-sized projectile. The light went on and then began the practice of throwing over
sized stones against others in order to make good-sized objects.
Every so often a descent-sized stone would be made but it would cut threw their little
hands, cause a wound, and would be discarded. Eventually after many cuts some bright
a'pith figured out that these bad stones that were good for cutting flesh of bones. Most
likely one of these stones would have been in close proximity of a carcass. For instance a
kill on top of one of the areas that they made handy stones out of larger stones. Then as
the ape attempted to break open a bone. It grabbed a sharp stone and instead of breaking
open the bone it's aimed missed and it sliced a tasty piece of meat off the bone. Ahhhhhh
the early food network!!!!!! Would have been nice with a Chianti and some fava beans fuh
fuh fuh fuh fuh. With all this, said I have little doubt that, on re-examination, that
many of the vast collection an early man made "tool" of pristine condition was merely
rejected stones that were too sharp to handle for throwing.
As or ancestors roamed far and wide it found its range was restricted to areas rich in
stones. A smart a'pith wouldn't dare go into an area with predators without knowing that a
stone was always handy. I doubt that carrying stones even crossed their minds until one
day one or more stones at a kill became wrapped up in such a way that the combination of
hide and stone formed, quite accidentally, the first sling. Eventually one of our bright
little ancestors used this combination and used it to carry precious objects… throwing
stones. Eventually female chimps used this technique to carry a slightly lager object.
Their infants and it was eventually noted that these slings kept the infants warm. They
kept the infants not only close to the mothers bosom but also wrapped in these slings the
first article of clothes were those worn by infants.
Our little a'pith ancestors probably like many of us were compulsive in gathering items
that they found useful. Perhaps many gathered stones for throwing or stones that they made
for throwing? All this weight couldn't be easily carried and sometime it would take an
inordinate amount to time to find a source of stones. No doubt, accidentally, our little
friends made piles of these orbs. Some small, some large. These piles of rocks were most
likely made as he stood or crouched in one place and just dropped them in front of him in
a haphazard fashion. As chance would have it, even at a foot or so in height they would
stand out on the plain. Eventually one bright little fellow realized that if he piled up
his cache of stone, he would be able to find them far away. Perhaps afterwards an a'pith
made the leap of the imagination to pile stones anywhere he found an object of interest. A
pool of water, a source of tubers or another source of handy stones. Yes the first
monuments were throwing stones.
All this you see came from stonethrowing. I'm sorry that some of you never thought of this
before. It is plain to see that stone throwing created us and what we are today.
Marc Verhaegen
<EdJohns...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:405657F3...@earthlink.net...
> Throwing a dense object at high velocity is obviously a dangerous if not
deadly projectile to virtually any potential carnivorous threat early
hominids would face on land. To me, it's clear that early hominids in the
form of even gracile a'piths used these to survive in those open areas where
grazing animals were predated by lions and other large felines that stalked
the open savanna.
You still believe in fairy tales? My dear Ed Johnson, there's no evidence
whatsoever that human ancestors ever lived in open savanna. Some hominid
populations might have lived there along the water courses, but they did not
venture into dry open savanna. Humans are completely different from savanna
inhabitants. Our thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers are never seen in
savanna mammals. We have a water-& sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our maximal urine
concentration is much lower than in savanna-dwelling mammals. We need more
water than other primates, have to drink more often than savanna
inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time.
Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Jim McGinn
> to virtually any potential carnivorous threat early hominids would face on land. To me,
> it's clear that early hominids in the form of even gracile a'piths used these to survive
> in those open areas where grazing animals were predated by lions and other large felines
> that stalked the open savanna.
You obviously haven't thought this through. Humans
are pretty good with projectiles. And if us humans
take the time to fashion them just so we can even be
deadly with projectiles. Humans can't do much damage
with rocks and sticks. And our earliest chimpanzee-
like ancestors surely could not do any damage at all
against larger predators. The supposition that our
chimpanzee-like ancestors would have ventured out into
treeless habitat with rocks and sticks in hand is
equally as ridiculous as them wading or swimming in
crocodile invested waters. I mean, get real. It's
not like this is hard to figure out.
>
> The interesting thing in all this is how, merely by proximity, these simple hand sized
> stones became early tools. First we all know about stone being used to break open bones to
> get at the marrow that. Now how did an ape, with a brain no larger than a chimp, go about
> making the connection of breaking bones with stones? He didn't travel any great distance
> to get a hand sized stone to break open the bones. The answer is simple and right in front
> of you; they used the stones that they threw in the first place in order to take
> possession of the carcass. Quite elementary.
Quite dimwitted.
>
> As far as making tools from stones. It is my contention that sharp tools were a byproduct
> of an even more basic need. The need to have stones that would be of the proper size to
> throw. In order to fill this need some ape would eventually begin the practice of through
> over sized stones to find handy sized stones. Eventually to would had been noticed that
> discarded stones occasionally broke against an outcropping or other stone and made for a
> good-sized projectile. The light went on and then began the practice of throwing over
> sized stones against others in order to make good-sized objects.
>
> Every so often a descent-sized stone would be made but it would cut threw their little
> hands, cause a wound, and would be discarded. Eventually after many cuts some bright
> a'pith figured out that these bad stones that were good for cutting flesh of bones. Most
> likely one of these stones would have been in close proximity of a carcass. For instance a
> kill on top of one of the areas that they made handy stones out of larger stones. Then as
> the ape attempted to break open a bone. It grabbed a sharp stone and instead of breaking
> open the bone it's aimed missed and it sliced a tasty piece of meat off the bone. Ahhhhhh
> the early food network!!!!!! Would have been nice with a Chianti and some fava beans fuh
> fuh fuh fuh fuh. With all this, said I have little doubt that, on re-examination, that
> many of the vast collection an early man made "tool" of pristine condition was merely
> rejected stones that were too sharp to handle for throwing.
Overlooking the nonsense about apes suddenly
transitioning into being primarily carnivorous, you
make some good points about rock throwing being a
precursor to more sophisticated tool usage (not that
these points haven't been made before by others).
<snip>
> All this you see came from stonethrowing. I'm sorry that some of you never thought of this
> before. It is plain to see that stone throwing created us and what we are today.
Pull your head out of your ass. Stonethrowing, in
and of itself, couldn't possibly explain the social
complexity of humans. And don't pretend that this
isn't as obvious to you as it is to everybody else.
Jim
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
As I stated in another post. I said that our ancestors needed also to have a permanent
source of water in their territory. Open plains and flowing water are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. As for the fairytale comment. Keep your grade school insults to
yourself and your kind. ahem
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
>
> EdJohns...@earthlink.net wrote in message news:<405657F3...@earthlink.net>...
> > Throwing a dense object at high velocity is obviously a dangerous if not deadly projectile
> > to virtually any potential carnivorous threat early hominids would face on land. To me,
> > it's clear that early hominids in the form of even gracile a'piths used these to survive
> > in those open areas where grazing animals were predated by lions and other large felines
> > that stalked the open savanna.
>
> You obviously haven't thought this through. Humans
> are pretty good with projectiles. And if us humans
> take the time to fashion them just so we can even be
> deadly with projectiles. Humans can't do much damage
> with rocks and sticks. And our earliest chimpanzee-
> like ancestors surely could not do any damage at all
> against larger predators. The supposition that our
> chimpanzee-like ancestors would have ventured out into
> treeless habitat with rocks and sticks in hand is
> equally as ridiculous as them wading or swimming in
> crocodile invested waters. I mean, get real. It's
> not like this is hard to figure out.
>
Please this constant reference to sticks has nothing to do with what I am saying. A stick
lacks the density or hardness required to concentrate energy into a very small area the
way a throw rock does. In addition, a sufficiently heavy stick or log cannot be handed
properly as a thrown device. Even if a wooden club could be fashioned and employed. It's
use as a short range weapon would be laughable against virtually any predator. Also, I
made no pretense to say that a'piths fashioned wooden clubs. In fact I think the opposite
is true. That would be too sophisticated a device for our stone throwing friends. I am
talking strictly about the stone as a projectile weapon.
Another thing, you paint a completely false picture. Venture into the treeless habitat?
Second point first, the savanna is not necessarily treeless and some good points can be
made as to why at least some trees would be almost a necessity in their habitat. Such as
the need for shade during the midday. In addition, the requirement for a permanent water
source also makes it likely that trees would exist. My point is that in general they would
had existed in a habitat that did not lend itself to ambush. The open savanna fits this
bill well. It just isn't the Hollywood open savanna that you are thinking about. I'm
talking about the real thing. As for the first point, using a term like venture is really
using the wrong type of thought process. They didn't venture. That was the habitat that
they existed in. They evolved there, that was their home. venture??? please.
> >
> > The interesting thing in all this is how, merely by proximity, these simple hand sized
> > stones became early tools. First we all know about stone being used to break open bones to
> > get at the marrow that. Now how did an ape, with a brain no larger than a chimp, go about
> > making the connection of breaking bones with stones? He didn't travel any great distance
> > to get a hand sized stone to break open the bones. The answer is simple and right in front
> > of you; they used the stones that they threw in the first place in order to take
> > possession of the carcass. Quite elementary.
>
> Quite dimwitted.
That is rather childish of you. Instead of giving a reason you give an insult. Sad.
>
> >
> > As far as making tools from stones. It is my contention that sharp tools were a byproduct
> > of an even more basic need. The need to have stones that would be of the proper size to
> > throw. In order to fill this need some ape would eventually begin the practice of through
> > over sized stones to find handy sized stones. Eventually to would had been noticed that
> > discarded stones occasionally broke against an outcropping or other stone and made for a
> > good-sized projectile. The light went on and then began the practice of throwing over
> > sized stones against others in order to make good-sized objects.
> >
> > Every so often a descent-sized stone would be made but it would cut threw their little
> > hands, cause a wound, and would be discarded. Eventually after many cuts some bright
> > a'pith figured out that these bad stones that were good for cutting flesh of bones. Most
> > likely one of these stones would have been in close proximity of a carcass. For instance a
> > kill on top of one of the areas that they made handy stones out of larger stones. Then as
> > the ape attempted to break open a bone. It grabbed a sharp stone and instead of breaking
> > open the bone it's aimed missed and it sliced a tasty piece of meat off the bone. Ahhhhhh
> > the early food network!!!!!! Would have been nice with a Chianti and some fava beans fuh
> > fuh fuh fuh fuh. With all this, said I have little doubt that, on re-examination, that
> > many of the vast collection an early man made "tool" of pristine condition was merely
> > rejected stones that were too sharp to handle for throwing.
>
> Overlooking the nonsense about apes suddenly
> transitioning into being primarily carnivorous, you
> make some good points about rock throwing being a
> precursor to more sophisticated tool usage (not that
> these points haven't been made before by others).
Gracile a'piths did not have the large digestive tracts of the robusts. IOW's they were
not herbivore. they were omnivores that depended of kills for their protein requirements.
>
> <snip>
>
> > All this you see came from stonethrowing. I'm sorry that some of you never thought of this
> > before. It is plain to see that stone throwing created us and what we are today.
>
> Pull your head out of your ass. Stonethrowing, in
> and of itself, couldn't possibly explain the social
> complexity of humans. And don't pretend that this
> isn't as obvious to you as it is to everybody else.
>
> Jim
Once again insults instead of reasoning. All I did was to point out the obvious importance
ands centrality of stone throwing in the development of man. You insult instead of reason.
I just glad that i'm not within throwing distance of you. If I was you would probably
throw a rock.
;^)
Rich Travsky
> [...]
> Please this constant reference to sticks has nothing to do with what I am saying. A stick
> lacks the density or hardness required to concentrate energy into a very small area the
> way a throw rock does. In addition, a sufficiently heavy stick or log cannot be handed
> properly as a thrown device. Even if a wooden club could be fashioned and employed. It's
> use as a short range weapon would be laughable against virtually any predator. Also, I
> made no pretense to say that a'piths fashioned wooden clubs. In fact I think the opposite
> is true. That would be too sophisticated a device for our stone throwing friends. I am
> talking strictly about the stone as a projectile weapon.
Cited in Kortlandt's 1980 paper "How Might Early Hominids have
Defended Themselves Against Large Predators and Food Competitors"
JHE (1980) 9, 79-112 involving animated leopard dummy:
...the apes used sticks up to 2 m long and 4 cm thick as clubs to attack the same
dummy. They inflicted heavy blows with hitting speeds up to at least 70 km/h,
probably much higher, possibly even 150 km/h, i.e. sufficient to cause serious injury.
...
> [...]
L Solomon
Not exactly what I had in mind. A device such as a hand sized stone that can be used in
its natural state is a better candidate for the first weapon used against predators and
competitors alike. With the in mind, I believe that the thrown stone is is a much more
pivotal technique in man's evolution. It can be used repeatedly at relatively great
distance and its unique character would be at the very least be perplexing and frightening
to virtually animal save a rhino or elephant or other gigantic herbivore of that time. A
club on the other hand is more of a last option weapon since it can only be used at close
quarters. The thrown stone is what allowed man to exist in an open savanna with permanent
water and some sparse shade trees.
In any case, thanks for the civil reply. Much appreciated.
Jim McGinn
Marc Verhaegen
<EdJohns...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:405E16A4...@earthlink.net...
> As I stated in another post. I said that our ancestors needed also to have
a permanent source of water in their territory. Open plains and flowing
water are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As for the fairytale comment.
Keep your grade school insults to yourself and your kind.
ahem. You miss the point. One must be stupid to believe that human ancestors
(before sapiens) ever lived in open plains. There's not the slightest
evidence for that far-fetched supposition. Humans are completely different
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> <EdJohns...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:405E16A4...@earthlink.net...
>
> > As I stated in another post. I said that our ancestors needed also to have
> a permanent source of water in their territory. Open plains and flowing
> water are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As for the fairytale comment.
> Keep your grade school insults to yourself and your kind.
>
> ahem. You miss the point. One must be stupid to believe that human ancestors
> (before sapiens) ever lived in open plains. There's not the slightest
> evidence for that far-fetched supposition.
Yes that fossil evidence found in savanna conditions is far fetched. Not rain forest nor
semi aquatic.
> Humans are completely different
> from savanna inhabitants. Our thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers are
> never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water-& sodium-wasting cooling
> system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our
> maximal urine concentration is much lower than in savanna-dwelling mammals.
> We need more water than other primates.
We probably need more and are less capable of surviving a severe environment than a'piths.
In any case I said that shade from the noon day sun and a permanent water source were also
a requirement. If you have been to at the western U.S. you would know what kind of
environment I am talking about. A open wide flat plain with little or seasonal rainfall
yet has some sparse trees and most likely a river flowing through it. That is the type of
savanna environment I am talking about. An environment where ambush is less likely. Yet
you persist on saying that I am talking about a waterless, treeless hardpan. Sounds like a
lack of reading comprehension on your part. Not an insult, just an observation.
Nor am I denying that A'piths also used the bush. That is so elementary that is goes
without saying. What I am saying is that the bush was a much more dangerous habitat for
them when compared to a realatively ambush free environment such as savanna. Being forced
to forage in the ambush prone bush was a dangerous and desperate survival technique for
such a small creature. That is so simple to understand.
BTW, you don't do very much for your AAT side with YOUR insults. Now here's a question for
you. What makes you think that an AAT existence made our ancestors such tremendous and
lethal stone throwers. Personally I don't get it.
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
IIRC those were chimpanzees and one could only guess at how much stronger a modern
chimpanzee is than a 60 lb a'pith. I think the idea of a 4 foot tall a'pith wielding a 6
foot long club sounds a little less likely than an a'pith taking a baseball sized stone
and throwing with high velocity at a predator. In any case, point well taken, thanks for
the reply and thanks for informing the group.
firstjois
>>
[snip]
>> BTW, you don't do very much for your AAT side with YOUR insults.
[snip]
As far as I've been able to tell, Marco has never done much of anything at
all for his AAT business. But I've only gone back in the SAP files for
about 5-6 years. Infact even his insults aren't originals, he copies those
from other posters. Boring.
Jois
--
I used to hear this fairly often -- I would bring out some facts and point
out that the AAT proponent's "facts" were actually "false facts", and the
AAT proponent would say it was simply a matter of "interpretation". It's a
shame to see that the level of argument for the AAT hasn't grown at all in
the past decade.
JMoore sbe 012104
Marc Verhaegen
<EdJohns...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:405F7AA8...@earthlink.net...
> > > As I stated in another post. I said that our ancestors needed also to
have a permanent source of water in their territory. Open plains and flowing
water are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As for the fairytale comment.
Keep your grade school insults to yourself and your kind.
> > ahem. You miss the point. One must be stupid to believe that human
ancestors (before sapiens) ever lived in open plains. There's not the
slightest evidence for that far-fetched supposition.
> Yes that fossil evidence found in savanna conditions is far fetched.
Twisting your own words? You said: "To me, it's clear that early hominids in
the form of even gracile a'piths used these to survive in those open areas
where grazing animals were predated by lions and other large felines that
stalked the open savanna." That some people still take such nonsense for
granted makes me sick. Early hominids lived in rainforests, gallery forests
etc. "From Sterkfontein, suggestions of greater woodland cover at the time
when Australopithecus was deposited in Member 4, had emerged from studies on
fossil pollen, but these were not compelling. Then Wits team member Marian
Bamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum in the same Member
4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be expected in open
savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal evidence that the
layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or forest margin
conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where "Lucy" was found, and from Aramis
in Ethiopia, where Tim White's team found Ardipithecus ramidus, possibly the
oldest hominid ever discovered, well-wooded and even forested conditions
were inferred from the fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the
fossil evidence adds up to the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to
2.5 million years ago having lived in a woodland or forest niche, not
savannah." Tobias http://archive.outthere.co.za/98/dec98/disp1dec.html
Enough said? Snipped the rest of your irrelevancies.
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Marc Verhaegen
"firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ZOdnUObtpn...@comcast.com...
- is still incapable of giving us 1 argument against AAT that human anestors
once lived at seacoasts,
- is still incapable of telling us why early Homo could not have followed
the Mediterranean & Indian Ocean coasts.
Luckily, there are a lot more intelligent PAs, eg, Phillip Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm & Chris Stringer: "I have
agreed that we lack plausible models for the origins of bipedalism and have
agreed that wading in water can facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed
in other normally quadrupedal primates). I have never said that this must
have been the forcing mechanism in hominids, but I do consider it plausible.
As for coastal colonisation, I argued in my Nature News & Views last year
that this was an event in the late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the
spread of modern humans."
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
I'm sorry that I underestimated your understanding of what open savanna means. To a person
of even average experience of the world. They realize that it doesn't mean a vast unending
arid flat landscape of nothing but nothing. I didn't realize that a person with such a
cardboard cutout cartoon worldview would post here. I'm sorry that your understanding of
habitat comes from roadrunner cartoons.
Then again what other sort of person would support something like AAT?
Rick Wagler
<EdJohns...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:406220E8...@earthlink.net...
Indeed. Anyone who would like to reliably inform themselves about what
real working scientists are referring to when using the term 'savannah'
would
be well advised to seek out
Bourliere, Francois (ed) (1983) Tropical Savannas Amsterdam : Ecosysterms
of the World 13, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
especially the article by Jean-Claude Menaut "The Vegetation of African
Savannas" wherein he identifies five different forest types found within the
broader, properly defined savanna ecosystem. Sadly most of these forests
have been destroyed and the relatively treeless nature of the East-African
savannah is a function of human ecocide.
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
<EdJohns...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:406220E8...@earthlink.net...
> Then again what other sort of person would support something like AAT?
What sort of person would not support something like AAT?
- Phillip Tobias http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
- Chris Stringer: "I have agreed that we lack plausible models for the
origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can facilitate
bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal primates). I
have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism in hominids,
but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I argued in my
Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the late Pleistocene
that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans."
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Marc Verhaegen
"Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:HLu8c.902912$X%5.654499@pd7tw2no...
> ... broader, properly defined savanna ecosystem. Sadly most of these
forests have been destroyed and the relatively treeless nature of the
East-African savannah is a function of human ecocide.
Yes, sad, but:
1) Forgot where the savanna idea came from? Dart (1925): "South Africa, by
providing a vast open country with occasional wooded belts and a relatively
scarcity of water, together with a fierce and bitter mammalian competition,
furnished a laboratory such as was essential to this penultimate phase of
human evolution." - vast open country - scarcity of water - fierce
mamm.competition... :-D
2) Forgot Wheeler's nonsense about human ancestors becoming bipedal to
minimise solar radiation (= no trees)??
Point is: human ancestors didn't evolve diving skills in some "savanna"...
Be a bit realistic instead of wasting your time with talking about throwing
stones at lions & such rubbish.
EdJohns...@earthlink.net
Marc Verhaegen wrote a haha:
>
> <snip>
>
> Point is: human ancestors didn't evolve diving skills in some "savanna"...
> Be a bit realistic instead of wasting your time with talking about throwing
> stones at lions & such rubbish.
Yes oh great one. You're so right. It's much more likely that these diving 60 lb a'piths
scared away 1200 lb crocodiles while diving in turbid water than a klan of a'piths chasing
away a pride of lions by lobbing baseball sized stones at the pride from 200 or more feet
away. In no way over hundreds and thousands of years would these creatures come to
recognize a'piths as stone throwers and more than likely leave a kill just to avoid a
chance at injury by these little buggers. Nope not a chance. In fact I wouldn't be
surprised that all those rounded baseball sized stones founds at ancient kills were really
just ballast that the a'piths carried around with them to improve their diving. Perhaps
they even used these rocks to jam into the jaws of crocs to prevent them from biting down.
The a'piths were on top of the pyramid in the river systems and lakes of Africa. Why
hippos would keel over in fright from the sight of one. The AAT theory is ever so
compelling.
*smirk*
firstjois
Michael Clark
> EdJohns...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> Marc Verhaegen wrote a haha:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Point is: human ancestors didn't evolve diving skills in some
> >>> "savanna"... Be a bit realistic instead of wasting your time with
> >>> talking about throwing stones at lions & such rubbish.
> >>
> >>
> >> *smirk*
Yea, when you put all the doofai in the bit bucket, you miss
out on all these goodies. I'm left with the rain of Jabriol and
the odd newbie suckin' up to Phil D. :-( Say, whatever happened
to Algis' point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's website?
I suppose it aint April yet so we'll just have to wait. (tick-tock)
I am tempted (occasionally) to dump the loon bin out on the table
and watch 'em skitter around. :-)
"Repeating imbecilities doesn't make them true."
--The Macro Man
Philip Deitiker
sednZNUaNg...@comcast.com:
>>> *smirk*
I have nothing really to say except I want to see if some
odd newbie will suck up to me.
--
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Bob Keeter
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
Snip. . . .
> the odd newbie suckin' up to Phil D. :-(
I think that the proper USENET term for those newbies might just be
"sock puppets". You know, a "created for the purpose" worshiper?
Only guessing of course, but its been a while since I've identified one
of his cute little alter-egos. ;-)
Regards
bk
firstjois
Heck, I thought he meant Seppo.
Jois
Marc Verhaegen
<EdJohns...@earthlink.net> completely fails to give 1 argument against
AAT in message news:4064C63C...@earthlink.net...
AAT situates the seaside episode late Plio- or early Pleistocene when early
Homo followed the Mediterranean & Indian Ocean coasts: Homo fossils or tools
~1.8 Ma have "suddenly" been found in Israel, Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia,
Java... In spite of sea level changes (Ice Ages), Homo (but not
australopith) remains have frequently been found amid shells, corals,
barnacles etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World
(eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could
only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm ).
For a scientific discussion of AAT (pro & contra) see
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
________
Marc Verhaegen
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> is still unable to give 1 argument
against AAT in message news:1069n4e...@corp.supernews.com...
At some time after the human/chimp split ~6-4 Ma, human ancestors were
seaside omnivores: collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs,
bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. explains many human traits (absent in
chimps) much better than dry savanna scenarios do: brain enlargement (but
olfactory bulb reduction), improved breathing control & diving skills,
varied vocality, handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing, reduction of
fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs & straight body build, reduction
of sense of smell, late puberty, high needs of water, iodine, sodium &
poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. So far, no arguments against this seaside
phase happening late Plio- early Pleistocene have been forwarded.
_________
Marc Verhaegen
Bob Keeter
8-)
Well, as with all of the rest of us, Seppo has his own issues, but I really
don't think that THIS is one of them. There's another couple that I'm
really not all that sure about, but. . . .havent bothered to develop the
"history" to make sure. Anyway, Philip's favorite phrases and sentence
constructions might have changed in the last few months, who knows
what "fingerprints" he leaves these days (matching the bathtub rings of
course!)! 8-)
Regards
bk
Spiznet
> In sci.anthropology.paleo, firstjois created a message ID news:-
>
> >>> *smirk*
>
> I have nothing really to say except I want to see if some
> odd newbie will suck up to me.
Probably not likely.
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
Its rhetoric, I am making *smirk* and Michael Clark's
comment.
BTW, I do think you guys unfairly attack the 'fire ape' guy.
I have seen much more pathetic ideas enter here.
Bob Keeter
"Spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:cb2e44af.04032...@posting.google.com...
Spiz ole boy, I must most humbly concede that you have captured the gold
medal for profound statements on this day, if not week. . . month. . .
year.. . . . .
;-)
Regards
bk
Rich Travsky
>
> Club, as in a wooden object that was hand tooled to provide maximum benefit to the user.
> Not exactly what I had in mind. A device such as a hand sized stone that can be used in
> its natural state is a better candidate for the first weapon used against predators and
> competitors alike. With the in mind, I believe that the thrown stone is is a much more
> pivotal technique in man's evolution. It can be used repeatedly at relatively great
Used repeatedly? You mean they went out and retrieved it?
> distance and its unique character would be at the very least be perplexing and frightening
> to virtually animal save a rhino or elephant or other gigantic herbivore of that time. A
> club on the other hand is more of a last option weapon since it can only be used at close
> quarters. The thrown stone is what allowed man to exist in an open savanna with permanent
> water and some sparse shade trees.
The chimps in Kortlandt's study did not look for stones; they went for sticks. What does
that tell us?
Rich Travsky
A chimp has more upper body strength than a human despite being smaller and had
no problem using a 2 m stick. Accuracy is less of an issue and the stick is far
more visible to the predator. Makes the wielder appear bigger. (This is, after all,
similar to what one is supposed to do when confronted by dogs or cougars: wave your
arms, yell, etc.)
Algis Kuliukas
> I suppose it aint April yet so we'll just have to wait. (tick-tock)
I said it would take a long time and I set myself a deadline of April
and I met it even though Moore's unwillingness to cite hardly any
references to the AAH claims he made meant that the research to do
this took far longer than I'd anticipated.
It was posted up on the web on April 1st.
In a nutshell...
Moore's web site does not seriously dent any of the major arguments in
favour of a mild form of the AAH in my opinion.
At best it acts as a source of counter-arguments to the idea of a
distinct post-LCA, pre H. sapeiens aquatic phase and many of the more
marginal speculations in Elaine Morgan's work. Moore does make some
good points on predation too which is, in my view, the strongest case
against the AAH.
At worst it appears to be some kind of sad, bitter attempt at a
character assination of Elaine Morgan.
The main thrust of his argument, that the quality of research of AAH
proponents (Morgan, almost always) is poor at best, and is not
trustworthy at worst, does not stand up to close scrutiny. Most of the
claims made about misquotations and/or misrepresentations that could
be verified turned out to be minor errors and sometimes revealed
misrepresentations in Moore's own research. In this regard, the
quality of his research when it came to giving clear and verifiable
sources for the claims he was attributing to AAH proponents was almost
always non existent and, as this was one of his main criticisms of the
AAH, it revealed a rather nauseating double standard. This
hypocritical position is perhaps best illustrated by his use of URL, a
web site called www.aquaticape.org, but dedicated to its ridicule.
Most of his points are in the form 'AAH proponents believe trait x is
explained by aquatic factor y' but almost never are such claims backed
up by references. So, to check them I had to spend hours reading
through the entire AAH literature again and again to see if anyone had
actually said what Moore claimed. Almost always Moore exagaterates the
claim to some absolutist, exclusive argument that was never intended
when, perhaps, they'd used it as *part* of their argument or in a
certain situation. Moore never reports accurately any such moderately
argued point. Quite often the claims are taken from conversations on
internet newsgroups and occasionally I couldn't find anyone who had
said Moore's claims at all at all.
It is probably true that Morgan may, on occasions, have been guilty of
being too enthusiastic and uncritical in endorsing pieces of data
which she thought supported the AAH (such as the salt tears argument)
but Moore is even more gung-ho at finding any tiny error in her work
to discredit it, to blow it up out of all proportion and report it as
some great shock-horror deliberate deception. (On the salt tears
argument, for example, Morgan abandonned her support for it seven
years ago, yet Moore continues to stress this argument as if it were a
major pillar of the AAH, writing over 10,000 words about the salt
argument compared to, say, 2,000 words on major AAH arguments like
hairlessness.)
It could be argued that Moore makes a good case against extreme
versions of the AAH but it is unlikely that many people would support
such views any more today. Moore, then, hardly addresses, let alone
refutes the, far milder, hypothesis that water has acted as an agency
of selection in human evolution more than it has in the evolution of
our great ape cousins.
The fact that aquasceptics continue promote the web site as some great
rebutal ('Magnus opus' even) shows the paucity of the
counter-arguments arguments or reluctance to consider a moderate
version of the hypothesis.
See..
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm
for the full critique.
Algis Kuliukas
firstjois
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04040...@posting.google.com...
: > Say, whatever happened to Algis' point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's
website?
: > I suppose it aint April yet so we'll just have to wait. (tick-tock)
:
: I said it would take a long time and I set myself a deadline of April
: and I met it even though Moore's unwillingness to cite hardly any
: references to the AAH claims he made meant that the research to do
: this took far longer than I'd anticipated.
:
: It was posted up on the web on April 1st.
:
: In a nutshell...
*Nut*shell
Hum.
Jois
Marc Verhaegen
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04040...@posting.google.com...
Nice to have you back, Algis.
> ... Moore's web site does not seriously dent any of the major arguments in
favour of a mild form of the AAH in my opinion. ...
The mild form of AAT (Homo living along coasts late Plio or early Pleisto)
is obvious except to some dry savanna-biased people.
> http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm
Thanks, I'll have a look.
--Marc
Marc Verhaegen
"firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> even snipped
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm in message
news:0pKdnQ-rJpS...@comcast.com...
Jim McGinn
> It was posted up on the web on April 1st.
An appropriate date.
> In a nutshell...
An appropriate analogy.
> Moore's web site does not seriously dent any
> of the major arguments in favour of a mild form
> of the AAH in my opinion.
It's like trying to put a dent in a beachball.
<snip>
> At worst it appears to be some kind of sad, bitter
> attempt at a character assassination of Elaine
> Morgan.
Which is completely unneccessary since Elaine
seems to achieve this all on her own.
> . . . always Moore exagaterates the claim to some
> absolutist, exclusive argument that was never
> intended when, perhaps, they'd used it as *part*
> of their argument or in a certain situation.
It's your own fault for actually making your thinking
clear. You'll noticed that Moore and the other
defenders of conventional vagueness are careful not
to fall into that trap.
> Moore never reports accurately any such moderately
> argued point.
From now on you should include disclaimers in your
arguments to the effect that they are "moderately
argued" and therefore not to be held up to the light
of scientific scrutiny.
Jim
Lorenzo L. Love
[snip]
> It could be argued that Moore makes a good case against extreme
> versions of the AAH but it is unlikely that many people would support
> such views any more today.
Is this anything other then a extreme versions of the Hypothesis of an
Aquatic Human Ancestor?
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/SFs.jpg
It's a full out delusional psychotic exemplar of net-loonism promoted by
your hero the grand high priest of wet apes. Until you condemn this
nonsense for what it is, you will be lumped into the same cracked pot.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in
those who borrow its language"
Louis Pasteur
Bob Keeter
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:tkYbc.15600$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> [snip]
> > It could be argued that Moore makes a good case against extreme
> > versions of the AAH but it is unlikely that many people would support
> > such views any more today.
> [snip]
>
> Is this anything other then a extreme versions of the Hypothesis of an
> Aquatic Human Ancestor?
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/SFs.jpg
> It's a full out delusional psychotic exemplar of net-loonism promoted by
> your hero the grand high priest of wet apes. Until you condemn this
> nonsense for what it is, you will be lumped into the same cracked pot.
>
Yep. That IS the shame of it, when a PERSON so shames an idea that
all those who hold to that believe (whatever it might be), get tarred with
the same brush. The AAx is, in all likelihood, a bunch of hooey, but so
long as everyone espousing it is bound and determined to worship at
the altar of Verhaugen, . . . . . . . . . very few are even willing to try
to
discuss it on a scientific basis. Of course the same could easily be said
about the sociopaths on our side of the fence you know.
Regards
bk
J Moore
Naturally, no one particularly likes having someone go over your work, but
that's the best way for mistakes to be found and corrected. That's why I
have that Carl Sagan quote on my opening page ("Valid criticism does you a
favor."). I only hope that most of your criticisms are more substansive
than complaining about the URL.
We're getting ready for a trip next month, and then another trip soon after
we get back from that, so don't expect any major changes for at least a
couple of months, but I'll be reading it with interest.
JMoore
--
For a scientific critque of the aquaticape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org
Marc Verhaegen
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:tkYbc.15600$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Algis Kuliukas wrote: [snip]
> > It could be argued that Moore makes a good case against extreme versions
of the AAH but it is unlikely that many people would support such views any
more today. [snip]
Sigh. Snipping is all these savanna fanatics can...
Here it is again:
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm>
> Is this anything other then a extreme versions of the Hypothesis of an
Aquatic Human Ancestor?
What amazes me is that these savanna people believe the most fantastic &
ridiculous so-called "explanations" for human or hominids traits (eg, bee
brood eating, head banging or eating carnivore livers "explains" thick
bones, eating bone marrow "explains" bigger brains, running under the midday
sun "explains" bipedality, sweating "explains" nakedness, a lot of SC fat
"explains" larger brains, etc.) & dogmatically declare that a seaside
evolution can't be possible... Meanwhile they're unable to give 1 argument
against AAT that human anestors once lived at seacoasts, they can't even
tell why early Homo could not have followed the Mediterranean & Indian Ocean
coasts.
Luckily, a lot of PAs have more open minds than these fanatics, eg, Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm & Stringer: "I have agreed
that we lack plausible models for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed
that wading in water can facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other
normally quadrupedal primates). I have never said that this must have been
the forcing mechanism in hominids, but I do consider it plausible."
For a serious scientific discussion of AAT (pro & contra) see
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Marc Verhaegen
"J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BKZbc.23516$oR5.15527@pd7tw3no...
> For a scientific critque of the aquaticape theory, go to
www.aquaticape.org
Don't be silly. For some blabla on what AAT not is, you mean?? Man, grow up.
Yet found 1 single argument against the hypothesis that early Homo late
Pliocene or early Pleistoce dispersed along the coasts?
For a scientific discussion of AAT (pro & contra) see
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Algis Kuliukas
Good. I hope you will be as open to at least some of the criticisms as
Elaine has been to yours.
> Naturally, no one particularly likes having someone go over your work, but
> that's the best way for mistakes to be found and corrected.
Exactly and that's why critiques are a big part of the scientific
process.
> That's why I
> have that Carl Sagan quote on my opening page ("Valid criticism does you a
> favor."). I only hope that most of your criticisms are more substansive
> than complaining about the URL.
Indeed they are.
> We're getting ready for a trip next month, and then another trip soon after
> we get back from that, so don't expect any major changes for at least a
> couple of months, but I'll be reading it with interest.
Thanks for responding to my posting so quickly, Jim. I really do think
this debate is in desperate need of some moderate and reasoned debate
on both sides including a willingness to admit fault and compromise.
I hope you see my review of your critique in that light and not just
another round of escalation in some kind of war of words.
Algis Kuliukas
Marc Verhaegen
are stupid & blind. You can as well talk to creationists. These fanatics
state that a seaside evolution can't be possible, but they can't give a
serious argument why early Homo could not have followed the Indian Ocean
coasts when they trekked to Java 1.8 Ma. Unbelievable. And some of them call
themselves scientists...
____________
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04040...@posting.google.com...
J Moore
Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.04040...@posting.google.com...
> "J Moore" <anthro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<BKZbc.23516$oR5.15527@pd7tw3no>...
> > Thanks Algis, I'm looking forward to seeing a critique of my site.
>
> Good. I hope you will be as open to at least some of the criticisms as
> Elaine has been to yours.
My god, I would hope we could set our bar a bit higher than that I don't
intend to call you a Joe McCarthy or the like, and I would certainly credit
you with changing my mind on something if you do so. .