The savannah one is pretty much out the window now.
Marc Verhaegen
*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
Herries, said.*
I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
shellfish. It's all so very logical.
I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
pretty much out the window now.
rmacfarl
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>
> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
The cited reference does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald. With
a little research, I find that the cited article should be this one, a
rather disjointed pre-election puff-piece from a political
correspondent who wisely does not venture into the murky world of Marc
Verhaegen and mangrove man:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cavedwellers-in-queensland/2007/10/17/1192300857029.html
http://tinyurl.com/5fccvr
The piece Marc posts is actually from that most authorittative of on-
line paleoanthropological fora, http://www.sciforums.com:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79797
No doubt Marc will soon return with irrefutable evidence that
siliconshrew is the on-line persona of Chris Stringer and Phil
Tobias's love-child who'll take time out from out-swimming Minke
whales in Beijing to set us all to rights on our discredited savannah
hypothesis.
Sigh...
Ross Macfarlane
Rick Wagler
"Marc Verhaegen" <m_ver...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C4C7DC4E.136E5%m_ver...@skynet.be...
talking about?
Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>
> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
> have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
> painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
This comment here doesn't make sense. Us hominids have been
(relatively) larger brained, multi-habitat, (and niche independent),
and highly communicative. And we've been this way for upwards of a
millions of years. Why wouldn't we expect them to have at least
started to exploit seafood, and occasionally occupy aquatic/littoral
habitat? What's the big deal? Likewise we'd expect them to begin to
search for food in many varied habitats, mountains, swamp, treeless
habitat, etc. So, Marc, if you are using this as evidence that
supports your notion that, "hominids had a more aquatic
past," (whatever that means) you're off your rocker.
> The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
> hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
> of our forebears.
It is? Why? I'm not catching on, here. How is this, "invaluable?"
> "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
> out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
> Herries, said.*
>
> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
> made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
Uh , , er. Uh. . . and cars require tires. But so what.
> The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
> shellfish. It's all so very logical.
Absurd logic.
> I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
> pretty much out the window now.
Yeah, but the reason it is out the window is for the same reason that
AAT will never make it in the window. Both AAT and Conventional
Theory are completely unable to describe the selective orgins of
hominid intellectual and communal behaviors/adaptations.
Marc Verhaegen
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
Savanna Fantast:
> The cited reference does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald. With
> a little research, I find that the cited article should be this one, a
> rather disjointed pre-election puff-piece from a political
> correspondent who wisely does not venture into the murky world of Marc
> Verhaegen and mangrove man:
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cavedwellers-in-queensland/2007/10/17/11923
> 00857029.html
> http://tinyurl.com/5fccvr
> The piece Marc posts is actually from that most authorittative of on-
> line paleoanthropological fora, http://www.sciforums.com:
> http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79797
> No doubt Marc will soon return with irrefutable evidence that
> siliconshrew is the on-line persona of Chris Stringer and Phil
> Tobias's love-child who'll take time out from out-swimming Minke
> whales in Beijing to set us all to rights on our discredited savannah
> hypothesis.
Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
just illustrated (see below original post, not snipped by the SF
inquisition) the obvious fact that among people interested in human
evolution (as the one below), more & more the savanna nonsense are treated
like what they are: nonsense, and that waterside ideas are becoming
meanstream, whether some medieval SFs like that or not. No sensible person
still doubts that our ancestors were waterside, in savannas or elsewhere,
probably all the time since we split from chimps. The question is now: how,
when & how much time much did our ancestors once spent in the water: how
much did they wade? or dive? what kind of food did they find at the
waterside? etc.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
Herries, said.*
I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The first time I read about AAT it
made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
shellfish. It's all so very logical.
I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
pretty much out the window now.
____
Of course, evolution doesn't require purpose literally: this is short for:
what we see in biology is funcitonal.
One must really be stupid to believe that we got fat tissues ten times those
of chimps for running after wildebeest, or dat we got such a poor sense of
smell for catching kudus.
Marc Verhaegen
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
Savanna Fantast:
> The cited reference does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald. With
> a little research, I find that the cited article should be this one, a
> rather disjointed pre-election puff-piece from a political
> correspondent who wisely does not venture into the murky world of Marc
> Verhaegen and mangrove man:
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cavedwellers-in-queensland/2007/10/17/11923
> 00857029.html
> http://tinyurl.com/5fccvr
> The piece Marc posts is actually from that most authorittative of on-
> line paleoanthropological fora, http://www.sciforums.com:
> http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79797
> No doubt Marc will soon return with irrefutable evidence that
> siliconshrew is the on-line persona of Chris Stringer and Phil
> Tobias's love-child who'll take time out from out-swimming Minke
> whales in Beijing to set us all to rights on our discredited savannah
> hypothesis.
Sigh...
My little boy, herer's what I answereed some other SF:
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
Savanna Fantast:
> The cited reference does not exist on the Sydney Morning Herald. With
> a little research, I find that the cited article should be this one, a
> rather disjointed pre-election puff-piece from a political
> correspondent who wisely does not venture into the murky world of Marc
> Verhaegen and mangrove man:
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cavedwellers-in-queensland/2007/10/17/11923
> 00857029.html
> http://tinyurl.com/5fccvr
> The piece Marc posts is actually from that most authorittative of on-
> line paleoanthropological fora, http://www.sciforums.com:
> http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79797
> No doubt Marc will soon return with irrefutable evidence that
> siliconshrew is the on-line persona of Chris Stringer and Phil
> Tobias's love-child who'll take time out from out-swimming Minke
> whales in Beijing to set us all to rights on our discredited savannah
> hypothesis.
Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
just illustrated (see below original post, not snipped by the SF
inquisition) the obvious fact that among people interested in human
evolution (as the one below), more & more the savanna nonsense are treated
like what they are: nonsense, and that waterside ideas are becoming
meanstream, whether some medieval SFs like that or not. No sensible person
still doubts that our ancestors were waterside, in savannas or elsewhere,
probably all the time since we split from chimps. The question is now: how,
when & how much time much did our ancestors once spent in the water: how
much did they wade? or dive? what kind of food did they find at the
waterside? etc.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
Herries, said.*
I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The first time I read about AAT it
made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
shellfish. It's all so very logical.
I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
pretty much out the window now.
____
Gerrit Hanenburg
>http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>
>*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
>have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
>painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
>
>The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
>hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
>of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
>out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
>Herries, said.*
>
>I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
>made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
It does?
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
SF:
> It does?
ask the writer, my boy
Gerrit Hanenburg
I'd rather ask the poster who uncritically dumps such extraordinary
claims in this newsgroup just because some nitwit in it speaks out in
favor of the AAT.
Do you subscribe to the statement that evolution requires a purpose?
Gerrit
rmacfarl
> >>http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
> >> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
>
>
> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
Morning Herald. They did not. They derives from an on-line forum of
dubious standing, and were posted by some anonymous nonentity who
calls him/herself "siliconshrew", and whose opinions are of no value
and serve no purpose...
> just illustrated (see below original post, not snipped by the SF
> inquisition) the obvious fact that among people interested in human
> evolution (as the one below), more & more the savanna nonsense are treated
> like what they are: nonsense, and that waterside ideas are becoming
> meanstream, whether some medieval SFs like that or not.
One poster, or even 500 subscribers to your on-line AAT adoration
society, does not translate to scientific credibility for your
discredited hypothesis.
Snip regurgitated BS...
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>>>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South
>>>> Africa
...
>> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
>> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
No answer of course, only irrelevant evasions:
> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
> Morning Herald.
Liar.
> They did not. They derives from an on-line forum of
> dubious standing, and were posted by some anonymous nonentity who
> calls him/herself "siliconshrew", and whose opinions are of no value
> and serve no purpose...
I'm not interested in what some savanna fool thinks is of value or not.
Marc Verhaegen
SF:
>>> It does?
do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness: do you subscribe that
that a creature that develops a bad olfaction, thick fat layers & a sodium &
water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
Claudius Denk
> do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness: do you subscribe that
> that a creature that develops a bad olfaction, thick fat layers & a sodium &
> water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
Obviously early hominids are not adapted to open, savanna habitat.
You either have to be extremely biased or extremely stupid to believe
that the evidence is consistent with hominids residing/thriving in
such. Likewise, you either have to be extremely biased or extremely
stupid to believe that the evidence is consistent with hominids
residing in aquatic or swamp habitat. Early hominid are associated
with garden habitat.
It's that simple folks. Savanna is wrong. Aquatic is wrong. Garden
is right.
The first chapter of the bible isn't a fluke. It's a clue.
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>>>> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
>>>>> made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
>
>SF:
>>>> It does?
>
>>> ask the writer, my boy
>
>> I'd rather ask the poster who uncritically dumps such extraordinary
>> claims in this newsgroup just because some nitwit in it speaks out in
>> favor of the AAT.
>> Do you subscribe to the statement that evolution requires a purpose?
>
>do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness:
No, adaptedness is a result of evolution.
>do you subscribe that a creature that develops a bad olfaction, thick fat layers & a sodium &
>water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
I recognize the description as that of a late 20th century redneck
couch potato with severe overweight wearing a dirty T-shirt on a hot
and humid Alabama summerday. The answer is no.
But speak about a well-acclimatized, lean, long-limbed and slender
nilotic type such as this Dinka
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Dinka.jpg, the answer is
yes.
Gerrit
Claudius Denk
<g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote:
> yes.
evasion noted:
Marc Verhaegen
sombody:
>>>>>> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The first time I read about AAT
>>>>>> it made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
SF:
>>>>> It does?
>>>> ask the writer, my boy
>>> I'd rather ask the poster who uncritically dumps such extraordinary
>>> claims in this newsgroup just because some nitwit in it speaks out in
>>> favor of the AAT.
>>> Do you subscribe to the statement that evolution requires a purpose?
>> do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness:
> No, adaptedness is a result of evolution.
you're a childish hair-splitter, Hanenburg
evolution is the result of selection of the non-adapted
>> do you subscribe that a creature that develops a bad olfaction, thick fat
>> layers & a sodium & water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
> I recognize the description as that of a late 20th century redneck
> couch potato with severe overweight wearing a dirty T-shirt on a hot
> and humid Alabama summerday. The answer is no.
> But speak about a well-acclimatized, lean, long-limbed and slender
> nilotic type such as this Dinka
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Dinka.jpg, the answer is
> yes.
your slender nilotic is still 5 times as fat as a chimp if it's a man, and
if it's a women, 10 times
Claudius Denk
> >>> Do you subscribe to the statement that evolution requires a purpose?
> >> do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness:
> > No, adaptedness is a result of evolution.
>
> you're a childish hair-splitter, Hanenburg
You both are.
rmacfarl
> >>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
> >>>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South
> >>>> Africa
>
> ...
>
> >> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
> >> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
>
> No answer of course, only irrelevant evasions:
>
> > You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
> > appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
> > Morning Herald.
>
> Liar.
>
Fool.
I invite you to click your mouse pointer on the blue underlined words
below.
If you click here:
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
You will get a message from the Sydney Morning Herald that says "Sorry
your page was not found ..."
If you do a Google search for "artistic beach loving lobster chomping
hominid":
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=artistic+beach+loving+lobster+chomping+hominid&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://tinyurl.com/6m25wj
... you will find a link which takes you here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79797
This is a post by someone who calls themselves "siliconshrew", &
includes a link which looks like this:
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
... but actually leads to this article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cavedwellers-in-queensland/2007/10/17/1192300857029.html
(http://tinyurl.com/5fccvr)
... written by SMH political journalist Annabel Crabb, who as far as I
know has no formal paleoanthropological training, and who in any case
makes no judgement about AAH (sensible woman.)
The sciforums post includes the first line on the SMH article but it
is "siliconshrew" who actually use these words that excite Marc so
much:
"
I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about
AAT it made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for
breaking shellfish. It's all so very logical.
I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah
one is pretty much out the window now.
"
(He/she is entitled to his/her - errh - "opinion".)
If you are going to call me a liar Marc, please take more care not to
open yourself so readily to refutation, in your own best interest.
You've just made a complete fool of yourself...
Ross Macfarlane
rmacfarl
>
A footnote to the above... I noticed that siliconshrew, the poster of
the AAH irrelevancies on SciForums.com, has been banned from posting
on that forum. Clicking on his/her profile is revealing:
"
Location: Queensland, Australia.
Interests: Hang gliding.
Occupation: Cartoonist.
Biography: I believe in Aliens but I've never seen one.
"
Sadly, a not atypical AAH supporter...
Ross Macfarlane
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the best argument I've
yet seen for why the AAH must be wrong is the quality of the arguments
made by those who believe it is right.
mclark
> On Aug 15, 8:36 am, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> A footnote to the above... I noticed that siliconshrew, the poster of
> the AAH irrelevancies on SciForums.com, has been banned from posting
> on that forum. Clicking on his/her profile is revealing:
>
> "
> Location: Queensland, Australia.
> Interests: Hang gliding.
> Occupation: Cartoonist.
> Biography: I believe in Aliens but I've never seen one.
..can I add this little nugget?
> Philosophy: I'd rather believe than know.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 15-08-2008 00:36, in artikel
3aeefd99-6561-4ea3...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, rmacfarl
<rmac...@alphalink.com.au> schreef:
> On Aug 14, 4:17 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>>>>>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South
>>>>>> Africa
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
>>>> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
>>
>> No answer of course, only irrelevant evasions:
>>
>>> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
>>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
>>> Morning Herald.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>
> Fool
waste your own time, my little boy
rmacfarl
> ...
>
> >> Liar.
>
> > Fool
>
> waste your own time, my little boy
>
>
Apology accepted...
Marc Verhaegen
>>> layers & a sodium & water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
>> I recognize the description as that of a late 20th century redneck
>> couch potato with severe overweight wearing a dirty T-shirt on a hot
>> and humid Alabama summerday. The answer is no.
>> But speak about a well-acclimatized, lean, long-limbed and slender
>> nilotic type such as this
>> Dinkahttp://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Dinka.jpg, the answer is
>> yes.
> evasion noted
Yes, a typical evasion.
The poor man, I guess a fat redneck with a dirty T-shirt, fails to answer:
- the poor olfaction of humans,
- the water + sodium wasting cooling system,
- that his "lean & slender" male Nilotics are 5 times as fat as chimps or
baboons, and the women even fatter,
- that very long legs rel.to trunk length are typically seen in arboreal &
wading animals.
And of course he can't answer the numerous other human features that
contradict his far-fetched fantasies.
If our ancestors had been like his Nilotics for almost 2 Ma, they had
developed running speeds far higher than 20 km/hr on long & 30 km/hr on
short distances (even chimps are faster), they had evolved superb olfaction
(even chimps have a better olfaction), a water-conservative cooling system
etc.etc.
It's ridiculous to state without any argument that our ancestors were living
in hot open milieus like at most 1/1000 of humans today.
Conclusion: savanna fantasts are stupid stupid stupid.
Rick Wagler
called out for posting as reliable infornmation nonsense
garnered from thoroughly unreliable websites and
newspaper articles? Perhaps you should stop doing
it. Reveals more about AAT research methods than
you'd care for the outside world to know.
Rick Wagler
nickname
> >>>>> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
> >>>>> made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
>
> >SF:
> >>>> It does?
>
> >>> ask the writer, my boy
>
> >> I'd rather ask the poster who uncritically dumps such extraordinary
> >> claims in this newsgroup just because some nitwit in it speaks out in
> >> favor of the AAT.
> >> Do you subscribe to the statement that evolution requires a purpose?
>
> >do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness:
>
> No, adaptedness is a result of evolution.
>
> >do you subscribe that a creature that develops a bad olfaction, thick fat layers & a sodium &
> >water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
>
> I recognize the description as that of a late 20th century redneck
> couch potato with severe overweight wearing a dirty T-shirt on a hot
> and humid Alabama summerday.
http://www.gulf-shores-alabama.net/
The answer is no.
> But speak about a well-acclimatized, lean, long-limbed and slender
> nilotic type such as this Dinkahttp://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Dinka.jpg, the answer is
> yes.
>
> Gerrit
Archaic Nilotics such as the Meroe divers of the upper Nile show
numerous signs of ear exostosis. They didn't live in areas where cold
breezes occur and there is clear evidence they dove for fish in the
Nile.
Do the Sudan Dinkas traditionally eat fish, shellfish, crustaceans? If
so, how did they get them?
DDeden
Claudius Denk
> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>
> news:C4CAFC80.137B7%m_ver...@skynet.be...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Op 15-08-2008 00:36, in artikel
> > rmacfarl
> > <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> schreef:
>
> >> On Aug 14, 4:17 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
> >>>>>>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in
> >>>>>>> South
> >>>>>>> Africa
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>>> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
> >>>>> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly
> >>>>> ??), I
>
> >>> No answer of course, only irrelevant evasions:
>
> >>>> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
> >>>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
> >>>> Morning Herald.
>
> >>> Liar.
>
> >> Fool
>
> > waste your own time, my little boy
>
> What's the matter? Are the AATers tired of being
> called out for posting as reliable infornmation nonsense
> garnered from thoroughly unreliable websites and
> newspaper articles? Perhaps you should stop doing
> it. Reveals more about AAT research methods than
> you'd care for the outside world to know.
>
> Rick Wagler
You tell em Rick.
Gerrit Hanenburg
>> >>>>> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
>> >>>>> made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
>>
>> >SF:
>> >>>> It does?
>>
>> >>> ask the writer, my boy
>>
>> >> I'd rather ask the poster who uncritically dumps such extraordinary
>> >> claims in this newsgroup just because some nitwit in it speaks out in
>> >> favor of the AAT.
>> >> Do you subscribe to the statement that evolution requires a purpose?
>>
>> >do you subscribe that evolution requires adaptedness:
>>
>> No, adaptedness is a result of evolution.
>>
>> >do you subscribe that a creature that develops a bad olfaction, thick fat layers & a sodium &
>> >water-wasting cooling system adapts to the savanna??
>>
>> I recognize the description as that of a late 20th century redneck
>> couch potato with severe overweight wearing a dirty T-shirt on a hot
>> and humid Alabama summerday.
>
>http://www.gulf-shores-alabama.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_subtropical_climate
>The answer is no.
>> But speak about a well-acclimatized, lean, long-limbed and slender
>> nilotic type such as this Dinkahttp://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Dinka.jpg, the answer is
>> yes.
>>
>> Gerrit
>
>Archaic Nilotics such as the Meroe divers of the upper Nile show
>numerous signs of ear exostosis. They didn't live in areas where cold
>breezes occur and there is clear evidence they dove for fish in the
>Nile.
Ref?
I very much doubt it. Anyone diving for fish in Nile waters is either
ignorant or pretty suicidal.
>Do the Sudan Dinkas traditionally eat fish, shellfish, crustaceans?
They are primarily pastoralists, but fishing is a seasonal option.
>If so, how did they get them?
Much the same way as their neighbours, the Nuer, as described in the
classic study by Evans-Pritchard,
http://www.amazon.com/Nuer-Description-Livelihood-Political-Institutions/dp/0195003225/,
using spear or harpoon in shallow waters, never diving because "the
streams are too deep and too infested with crocodiles to encourage
fishing" (p. 72). http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Nuer.jpg
Gerrit
Claudius Denk
> >>>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
> > You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
> > appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
> > Morning Herald.
>
> Liar.
It's right there in black and white, Marc. You included a broken link
that implies that this article was in SMH. It's your responsibility
to make sure that your sources cannot be misinterpreted. Your
attitude is inexcusable.
Marc Verhaegen
>> evasion noted
still evading
nickname
<g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote:
Still looking for it. Here's one, which does not support "numerous"
nor "clear evidence they dove" unfortunately.
Auditory exostoses found in Meroitic Nubians at Semna South:
implications
for subsistence strategies and/or social practices.
K Godde
Much success has been found in studies that explore auditory exostoses
and their development from prolonged cold-water exposure due to
subsistence
strategies (Frayer 1988; Kennedy 1986; Velasco-Vasquez et al. 2000) or
social practices (Manzi et al. 1991). In this study, individuals from
the
site of Semna South, representing the Meroitic (N=266), X-Group (N=26)
and
Christian (N=11) time periods are examined for auditory exostoses. The
subsistence strategy hypothesis is used to explain presence of the
trait.
Three individuals from the Meroitic time period (or 1%) are found to
have
exostoses that mostly occlude the ear canals, suggesting prolonged
cold-water exposure. Studies of ancient Nubian sites have discovered
fish
remains (most notably Nile Perch), implying their use as a resource
(Adams
1977). However, if the Meroites were diving for marine resources in
the
Nile, a higher percentage of individuals possessing the trait is
expected.
The other hypothesis of social practices is examined due to the ill
fit of
the subsistence strategy model. Individuals who frequented Roman baths
with
cold-water chambers have been observed to have the trait (Manzi et al.
1991). Baths lacking heating capabilities have been found at the
capital of
the Meroitic period, Meroë (Adams 1977). Ancient Nubian migration
patterns
show they may have moved back and forth between Upper and Lower Nubia
(Adams
1977). If they followed the Nile, it is possible these three
individuals
may have migrated from Meroë to Semna South (both located on the
Nile).
This information yields potential insight into migration patterns of
ancient
Nubians.
DDeden
> I very much doubt it. Anyone diving for fish in Nile waters is either
> ignorant or pretty suicidal.
>
> >Do the Sudan Dinkas traditionally eat fish, shellfish, crustaceans?
>
> They are primarily pastoralists, but fishing is a seasonal option.
>
> >If so, how did they get them?
>
> Much the same way as their neighbours, the Nuer, as described in the
> classic study by Evans-Pritchard,http://www.amazon.com/Nuer-Description-Livelihood-Political-Instituti...,
Marc Verhaegen
>>> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
>>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
>>> Morning Herald.
>> Liar.
> It's right there in black and white, Marc. You included a broken link
> that implies that this article was in SMH. It's your responsibility
> to make sure that your sources cannot be misinterpreted. Your
> attitude is inexcusable.
- my boy, why would i include broken links??
- i didn't imply anything
- somebody said: The savannah one is pretty much out the window now. i
liked that & copied the whole thing from AAT
- i had no problem opening the link
- whether some part of it came from some newspaper or not, "respected"(:-D)
or not, i have no idea & don't care
- why are there always some maniacs that make simple things complicated??
Rick Wagler
the sources he uses that absolutely nothing he says can be
taken at face value. You and DD have consistently posted
data as information without qualifying introductions as to
source etc that has turned out to be absolute garbage.
Is that reason enough for you? But you're right. Now that
you and DD have established a track record I suggest that
we all simply ignore such posts as frima facie nonsense. For,
as Jim Moore points out, you clowns can post this garbage
at a much faster clip than Ross or I or anyone else can clean
it up.
Rick Wagler
nickname
<g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> wrote:
> using spear or harpoon in shallow waters, never diving because "the
> streams are too deep and too infested with crocodiles to encourage
> fishing" (p. 72).http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Nuer.jpg
>
> Gerrit
Thanks for the ref Gerrit. The recent find of Kiffians and Tenerians
in the 10,000 - 5,000 year old Sahara lake area seems similar to the
Nuer use of water resource collection with harpoons and spears, in
addition to dairy production. What did they do before they started
milking cows on a daily basis? (Milk provides nutrients not found in
meat.) Isn't dairying in Africa relatively recent, less than 10,000
years old?
DDeden
nickname
> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
Rick talking out of his other orifice again? Note how 'humid' human
feces is (even among today's savanna-entrained tribes) compared to
actual savanna mammals. Everything about humans is water-costly,
obviously dependence on water has always been priority 2, right after
dependence on air to breathe.
Rick Wagler
"nickname" <alas_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74c5dcc1-eac0-4ec4...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why not do something really radical for the crowd
you run with. Do some investigation of how water
use in humans actually functions and what it allows
us to do. What a concept! How much water humans
use is irrelevant. The real question is can humans
find the water they need no matter how much that
may be. You'll find that humans can adapt very
well to arid environments and have been doing so
for a very long time if palaeo-environmental analysis
is anything to go by. Marvel at sloppy human feces
if that's what gets your motor running but there are
less odiferous approaches to the question that can
be pursued.
Rick Wagler
nickname
> "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Shorelines ALWAYS got water. nuf said.
Marc Verhaegen
>>>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
SF:
>>>>> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
>>>>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
>>>>> Morning Herald.
>>>> Liar.
other:
>>> It's right there in black and white, Marc. You included a broken link
>>> that implies that this article was in SMH. It's your responsibility
>>> to make sure that your sources cannot be misinterpreted. Your
>>> attitude is inexcusable.
>> - my boy, why would i include broken links??
>> - i didn't imply anything
>> - somebody said: The savannah one is pretty much out the window now. i
>> liked that & copied the whole thing from AAT
>> - i had no problem opening the link
>> - whether some part of it came from some newspaper or not,
>> "respected"(:-D) or not, i have no idea & don't care
>> - why are there always some maniacs that make simple things complicated??
SF:
> Because some would-be scholar is so densely uncritical of
> the sources he uses that absolutely nothing he says can be
> taken at face value ...
my little little boy, if you are so stupid & so childish & so naive as to
believe that everything that appears at s.a.p is true, go elsewhere
in fact, a lot of things that appear in "respected" scientific journals are
not much better
Marc Verhaegen
> Rick talking out of his other orifice again? Note how 'humid' human
> feces is (even among today's savanna-entrained tribes) compared to
> actual savanna mammals. Everything about humans is water-costly,
> obviously dependence on water has always been priority 2, right after
> dependence on air to breathe.
Yes, DD, but the savanna fantasts here will never understand that.
--Marc
Marc Verhaegen
> How much water humans use is irrelevant.
no comment necessary...
Rick Wagler
hilariously false? You feel absolutely no sense of
obligation to vet your own material? Your advice
re usenet is correct.....but it should not especially
apply to one's own material. If it does you've got
major problems both ethical and psychological.
Rick Wagler
Rick Wagler
human water dependency is as extreme as they claim, it
*does not* represent a limiting factor with regard to
hominid distribution and habitat use.
Rick Wagler
Rick Wagler
> SF now says:
>
>> How much water humans use is irrelevant.
>
> no comment necessary...
>
to claim limitations on early homind behaviour which
are nothing more than wetloon fantasies.
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
>> SF now says:
>>> How much water humans use is irrelevant.
>> no comment necessary...
SF:
> So why is it relevant?
my little boy,
never heard of physiology?? evolution??
FYI:
Water Economics
Drinking water
Among the commonest of mammalian adaptations to a hot, dry habitat is a
minimal dependence on drinking water. Many small savannah and desert mammals
(burrowing and nocturnal) do not drink at all. The same is true of some of
the African ungulates such as the eland and the oryx (Taylor 1970).
Carnivores usually need to drink more because their diet consists of
relatively large amounts of protein, which requires a lot of water for its
excretion in the urine (Schmidt-Nielsen 1979 p.125). Yet in desert habitats
even carnivores such as fennecs have the capacity to survive without
drinking. Many arboreal primates such as langurs almost never drink because
the moisture in their vegetarian diet is sufficient for their needs (Napier
and Napier 1985 p.151). If the ancestors of human beings had left the
forests and gone into more open environments, they would have evolved the
capacity to become more conservative with water as a means of adapting to
their habitat.
Precisely the opposite it true. Humans, even without exercise and in
temperate climates, have to drink much more than any other terrestrial
mammal. Otherwise they would become susceptible to cystitis and other
infections, kidney stones, and especially dehydration. Without intervention,
a dehydration of about 10 per cent may be fatal for humans, whereas most
animals can rapidly recover from a dehydration of 20 per cent. For instance,
dogs can survive a dehydration of 17 per cent, cats 20 per cent, camels and
donkeys 25 per cent (Wilson 1979 p.753; Schmidt-Nielsen 1979 pp.15, 62, 89,
123-5).
Sweat production
Of all mammals, man has the highest sweat production (Newman 1970). Montagna
(1965) says: ŚSweating is an enigma that amounts to a major biological
blunder; it depletes the body not only of water, but also of sodium and
essential electrolytesą. But sweating is only one of the strategies mammals
have evolved to prevent overheating. Many small mammals - such as rodents,
marsupials and cats - use saliva instead of sweat for thermoregulation,
spreading it over the more sparsely haired areas of the skin so that in
evaporating it cools the body. Some larger mammals - such as dogs - reduce
their body temperature by panting; others, like horses and cattle, sweat;
sheep do both. But the maximum water loss per unit of skin surface in these
species is always much smaller than in humans (Newman, 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen
pp.54, 73, 83).
Although camels sweat, they have adapted to their arid environment by
reducing water loss to a minimum; they do this by allowing their body
temperature to rise during the day; the heat thus stored is given up at
night without any expenditure of water. African hunting dogs (which, like
dogs, do not sweat and do not salivate, and, unlike dogs, do not even pant)
use the same strategy: they conserve water both by hiding in holes during
the day and by allowing their body temperature to reach a level which in
humans would be fatal, around 42°C (Kanwisher, 1977).
Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined with low
body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions and the
least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat. As far as is known,
fur seals are the only non-human mammals which sweat thermoactively through
abundant eccrine glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are
overheated on land (G.A.Bartholomew in McFarland et al.1979 p.773).
Other water losses
Maximum urine concentration tends to vary according to the amount of water
available in the environment and the diet (Table 11.l). Pigs and macaques,
herbivores with a succulent diet, produce urine slightly more dilute than
humans; that of freshwater beavers is much more dilute. On the other hand,
the urine of dolphins is slightly more concentrated, and that of most land
mammals like cats, dogs, sheep and rats is much more concentrated than in
humans. In the savannah and desert dwellers, renal osmotic power is at the
maximum. This seems to imply that human ancestors had ready access to a
plentiful supply of fresh water or possibly brackish water, or at least to
large quantities of fruits and fresh vegetables. Neither of these conditions
is likely to have been fulfilled on the savannah. Even an evolution of only
a few hundred thousand years in a mosaic gallery environment would have
selected a higher urine concentration capacity.
The water content of human faeces tells a similar story. When camels drink
daily, their faeces consist of 50-65 per cent water; when they have no
access to drinking water, it is only 45 per cent (Schmidt-Nielsen 1979
p.61). Small desert rodents have a faecal water content in a similar range,
between 45 and 50 per cent (Macmillen 1972) as compared with about 70 per
cent in the white rat. Human faeces normally consist of 75 per cent water
(Diem and Lentler 1978 p.658).
The final channel of water loss is through exhaled air. Many animals in arid
and semi-arid environments - such as kangaroos, giraffes and camels, as well
as reindeer in the arctic desert - conserve most of the water breathed out
from the lungs by utilising counter-current exchange of water during
expiration. In humans, however, more saturated air is exhaled (Langman 1985;
Walker, Wells and Merrill 1961).
Human water needs in hot, open environments
The total water expended by humans in sweat may easily reach 10 or 15 litres
per day in hot and open environments (Newman 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen p.12).
Man needs to ingest water in large quantities to replace this loss. It might
therefore be expected that he would have acquired the capacity to drink deep
when water was available, and possibly to retain the water in his body.
As in the other instances quoted, the reverse is true. In the
above-mentioned volume Schmidt-Nielsen makes this clear. Manąs body is not
adapted to store water: any excess taken in, for whatever reason, is rapidly
excreted by the kidneys (p.18). He has little, if any, ability to be trained
to use less water (p.22). When water is available, he is an unusually slow
drinker. A very thirsty man can drink 3 per cent of his body weight in ten
minutes, but a dehydrated camel, 30 per cent (p.67). Moreover, when in
danger of dehydration, man does not drink enough to replenish the water loss
even if a plentiful supply of water is available (p.9).
Conclusion
All the available evidence points to an extreme dependence on water in
humans (Table 11.2). Even if our ancestors once lived in mosaic savannah
environments, they would be expected to have evolved a more efficient system
of water conservation than is in fact the case. ŚMan suffers from a unique
trio of conditions: hypotrichosis corporis, hyperhydrosis, and polydipsiaą
(nakedness, sweatiness and thirst) (Newman 1970). Humans cannot withstand
hyperthermia and cannot store heat. They have abundant sweat and tears,
rather saturated expiration and dilute urine, watery faeces, a low drinking
capacity, a naked skin, a rather thick subcutaneous fat layer over the
central body parts, a rather low body temperature and a small circadian
temperature fluctuation.
Each of these features suggests that man evolved in an environment where
water was permanently and abundantly available. In combination, they point
irresistibly to the conclusion that wherever man evolved these
characteristics, it could not have been on the savannah.
Marc Verhaegen
> And wetloons never understand that, to the extent that
> human water dependency is as extreme as they claim, it
> *does not* represent a limiting factor with regard to
> hominid distribution and habitat use.
FYI:
Water Economics
Drinking water
Among the commonest of mammalian adaptations to a hot, dry habitat is a
minimal dependence on drinking water. Many small savannah and desert mammals
(burrowing and nocturnal) do not drink at all. The same is true of some of
the African ungulates such as the eland and the oryx (Taylor, 1970).
Carnivores usually need to drink more because their diet consists of
relatively large amounts of protein, which requires a lot of water for its
excretion in the urine (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, p. 125). Yet in desert
habitats even carnivores such as fennecs have the capacity to survive
without drinking. Many arboreal primates such as langurs almost never drink
because the moisture in their vegetarian diet is sufficient for their needs
(Napier and Napier, 1985, p. 151). If the ancestors of human beings had left
the forests and gone into more open environments, they would have evolved
the capacity to become more conservative with water as a means of adapting
to their habitat.
Precisely the opposite it true. Humans, even without exercise and in
temperate climates, have to drink much more than any other terrestrial
mammal. Otherwise they would become susceptible to cystitis and other
infections, kidney stones, and especially dehydration. Without intervention,
a dehydration of about 10 per cent may be fatal for humans, whereas most
animals can rapidly recover from a dehydration of 20 per cent. For instance,
dogs can survive a dehydration of 17 per cent, cats 20 per cent, camels and
donkeys 25 per cent (Wilson, 1979, p. 753; Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, pp. 15,
62, 89, 123-5).
Sweat production
Of all mammals, man has the highest sweat production (Newman, 1970).
Montagna (1965) says: ŚSweating is an enigma that amounts to a major
biological blunder; it depletes the body not only of water, but also of
sodium and essential electrolytesą. But sweating is only one of the
strategies mammals have evolved to prevent overheating. Many small mammals -
such as rodents, marsupials and cats - use saliva instead of sweat for
thermoregulation, spreading it over the more sparsely haired areas of the
skin so that in evaporating it cools the body. Some larger mammals - such as
dogs - reduce their body temperature by panting; others, like horses and
cattle, sweat; sheep do both. But the maximum water loss per unit of skin
surface in these species is always much smaller than in humans (Newman,
1970; Schmidt-Nielsen, pp. 54, 73, 83).
Although camels sweat, they have adapted to their arid environment by
reducing water loss to a minimum; they do this by allowing their body
temperature to rise during the day; the heat thus stored is given up at
night without any expenditure of water. African hunting dogs (which, like
dogs, do not sweat and do not salivate, and, unlike dogs, do not even pant)
use the same strategy: they conserve water both by hiding in holes during
the day and by allowing their body temperature to reach a level which in
humans would be fatal, around 42°C (Kanwisher, 1977).
Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined with low
body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions and the
least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat. As far as is known,
fur seals are the only non-human mammals which sweat thermoactively through
abundant eccrine glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are
overheated on land (G. A. Bartholomew, in McFarland et al., 1979, p. 773).
Other water losses
Maximum urine concentration tends to vary according to the amount of water
available in the environment and the diet (Table 11.l). Pigs and macaques,
herbivores with a succulent diet, produce urine slightly more dilute than
humans; that of freshwater beavers is much more dilute. On the other hand,
the urine of dolphins is slightly more concentrated, and that of most land
mammals like cats, dogs, sheep and rats is much more concentrated than in
humans. In the savannah and desert dwellers, renal osmotic power is at the
maximum. This seems to imply that human ancestors had ready access to a
plentiful supply of fresh water or possibly brackish water, or at least to
large quantities of fruits and fresh vegetables. Neither of these conditions
is likely to have been fulfilled on the savannah. Even an evolution of only
a few hundred thousand years in a mosaic gallery environment would have
selected a higher urine concentration capacity.
The water content of human faeces tells a similar story. When camels drink
daily, their faeces consist of 50-65 per cent water; when they have no
access to drinking water, it is only 45 per cent (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, p.
61). Small desert rodents have a faecal water content in a similar range,
between 45 and 50 per cent (Macmillen, 1972) as compared with about 70 per
cent in the white rat. Human faeces normally consist of 75 per cent water
(Diem and Lentler, 1978, p. 658).
The final channel of water loss is through exhaled air. Many animals in arid
and semi-arid environments - such as kangaroos, giraffes and camels, as well
as reindeer in the arctic desert - conserve most of the water breathed out
from the lungs by utilising counter-current exchange of water during
expiration. In humans, however, more saturated air is exhaled (Langman,
1985; Walker, Wells and Merrill, 1961).
Human water needs in hot, open environments
The total water expended by humans in sweat may easily reach 10 or 15 litres
per day in hot and open environments (Newman, 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen, p. 12).
Man needs to ingest water in large quantities to replace this loss. It might
therefore be expected that he would have acquired the capacity to drink deep
when water was available, and possibly to retain the water in his body.
As in the other instances quoted, the reverse is true. In the
above-mentioned volume Schmidt-Nielsen makes this clear. Manąs body is not
adapted to store water: any excess taken in, for whatever reason, is rapidly
excreted by the kidneys (p. 18). He has little, if any, ability to be
trained to use less water (p. 22). When water is available, he is an
unusually slow drinker. A very thirsty man can drink 3 per cent of his body
weight in ten minutes, but a dehydrated camel, 30 per cent (p. 67).
Moreover, when in danger of dehydration, man does not drink enough to
replenish the water loss even if a plentiful supply of water is available
(p. 9).
Conclusion
All the available evidence points to an extreme dependence on water in
humans (Table 11.2). Even if our ancestors once lived in mosaic savannah
environments, they would be expected to have evolved a more efficient system
of water conservation than is in fact the case. ŚMan suffers from a unique
trio of conditions: hypotrichosis corporis, hyperhydrosis, and polydipsiaą
(nakedness, sweatiness and thirst) (Newman, 1970). Humans cannot withstand
Marc Verhaegen
> And this is your justification for posting stuff which is
> hilariously false?
savanna nonsense is hilarious false
my little boy, you have 0 justification for posting stuff which is hilarious
false
this is what i posted - i'm not responsible for the comment below but it's
1000 x more correct that your savanna rubbish:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
Herries, said.*
I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The first time I read about AAT it
made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
shellfish. It's all so very logical.
I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
nickname
> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
(Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
truckload of salt too!)
Rick Wagler
So you don't know what an ecologist or biogeographer
means by "limiting factor" either....? As for your cite,
since you will no doubt play the wandering waif to MV's
Pied Piper and follow him in his refusal to vet
material he posts as information from neutral sources, I
will ignore it till someone with a minimal sense of responsibility
confirms it.
Rick Wagler
Gerrit Hanenburg
>> >Archaic Nilotics such as the Meroe divers of the upper Nile show
>> >numerous signs of ear exostosis. They didn't live in areas where cold
>> >breezes occur and there is clear evidence they dove for fish in the
>> >Nile.
>>
>> Ref?
>> I very much doubt it. Anyone diving for fish in Nile waters is either
>> ignorant or pretty suicidal.
>>
>> >Do the Sudan Dinkas traditionally eat fish, shellfish, crustaceans?
>>
>> They are primarily pastoralists, but fishing is a seasonal option.
>>
>> >If so, how did they get them?
>>
>> Much the same way as their neighbours, the Nuer, as described in the
>> classic study by Evans-Pritchard,http://www.amazon.com/Nuer-Description-Livelihood-Political-Instituti...,
>> using spear or harpoon in shallow waters, never diving because "the
>> streams are too deep and too infested with crocodiles to encourage
>> fishing" (p. 72).http://web.inter.nl.net/users/G.Hanenburg/Nuer.jpg
>>
>> Gerrit
>
>Thanks for the ref Gerrit. The recent find of Kiffians and Tenerians
>in the 10,000 - 5,000 year old Sahara lake area seems similar to the
>Nuer use of water resource collection with harpoons and spears, in
>addition to dairy production. What did they do before they started
>milking cows on a daily basis?
In recent times the Nuer subsisted on a mixed economy of pastoralism,
horticulture, and hunting (including fishing) and gathering, with
emphasis on pastoralism. They need a mixed economy because "their
herds do not supply them with enough nourishment" and "their millet
harvest is often meagre and uncertain" (Evans Pritchard 1940).
However, "Nuerland is very rich in game" and "The rivers teem with
fish of many edible species which greatly supplement the diet of the
Nuer in the dry season and enable them to survive years in which crops
fail or there are epidemics among the herds." Gathering constitutes
only a minor aspect of Nuer subsistence and "in most years wild
fruits, seeds, and roots are not an important item in Nuer diet. Their
country is mainly treeless and fruits therefore few".
So without the cattle and the millet ancestral Nuer subsistence would
have to be based mainly on hunting and fishing.
>(Milk provides nutrients not found in meat.) Isn't dairying in Africa
>relatively recent, less than 10,000 years old?
Yes, probably. As far as subsaharan Africa is concerned domesticated
cattle appear at around 5000 BC at Kadero in Sudan and by 2500 BC had
spread as far south as Lake Turkana, Kenya. (Bellwood 2005:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780631205661&site=1)
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
>> human water dependency is as extreme as they claim
again, my little" boy, inform:
we correctly estimate human water needs:
RichTravsky
> 3aeefd99-6561-4ea3...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, rmacfarl
> <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> schreef:
> > On Aug 14, 4:17 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
> >>>>>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South
> >>>>>> Africa
> >>
> >>>> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
> >>>> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??), I
> >>
> >> No answer of course, only irrelevant evasions:
> >>
> >>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
> >>> Morning Herald.
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
>
> waste your own time, my little boy
You posted a broken link, Marc. Here's what you posted:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
Notice the three periods? That's part of the link that is missing.
Not that it matters too much, the word "opinion" is in what's there, and
that alone indicates it is someone's opinion, and not a paper or news article
or anything authoritative.
RichTravsky
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
Broken link.
Opinion piece.
Worthless.
> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
> have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
"some"
> painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
>
> The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
> hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
> of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
> out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
> Herries, said.*
>
> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
RichTravsky
> >> have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
> >>
> >> The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
> >> hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
> >> of our forebears. "It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
> >> out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
> >> Herries, said.*
> >>
> >> I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
> >> made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
>
> > It does?
>
> ask the writer, my boy
The writer is a nobody expressing an opinion. rmacfarl tracked it down and exposed
it. You fell for it, Marc.
RichTravsky
>
> >>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>
> >>> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
> >>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
> >>> Morning Herald.
>
> >> Liar.
>
> > It's right there in black and white, Marc. You included a broken link
> > that implies that this article was in SMH. It's your responsibility
> > to make sure that your sources cannot be misinterpreted. Your
> > attitude is inexcusable.
>
> - my boy, why would i include broken links??
Because you're stupid. That's a broken link up there. Notice the three periods?
> - i didn't imply anything
> - somebody said: The savannah one is pretty much out the window now. i
A nobody said that. Big deal.
> liked that & copied the whole thing from AAT
> - i had no problem opening the link
try the one from up above:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
> - whether some part of it came from some newspaper or not, "respected"(:-D)
> or not, i have no idea & don't care
So you don't mind postig rubbish?
RichTravsky
Here we go again. Can't drink salt water.
RichTravsky
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/a8f7ca1c31d823b0?dmode=source&hl=en
...
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:40:26 +0200
...
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E90F371...@hotMOVEmail.com...
...
>>>> Your arborealism can't explain our ext.nose, our furlessness, SC fat etc.
>>> Neither can you. Especially since you admitted bushmen are savannah adapted.
> > "admitted"?? :-D What else IYO??
> Yes, you admitted it. Are you denying it now?
Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
...
RichTravsky
>
> >> SF now says:
> >>> How much water humans use is irrelevant.
>
> >> no comment necessary...
>
> SF:
> > So why is it relevant?
>
> my little boy,
> never heard of physiology?? evolution??
> FYI:
>
> Water Economics
>
> Drinking water
>
> Conclusion
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/a8f7ca1c31d823b0?dmode=sourc
RichTravsky
>
> SF:
> > And wetloons never understand that, to the extent that
> > human water dependency is as extreme as they claim, it
> > *does not* represent a limiting factor with regard to
> > hominid distribution and habitat use.
>
> FYI:
>
> Water Economics
RichTravsky
>
> > And this is your justification for posting stuff which is
> > hilariously false?
>
> savanna nonsense is hilarious false
>
> my little boy, you have 0 justification for posting stuff which is hilarious
> false
>
> this is what i posted - i'm not responsible for the comment below but it's
> 1000 x more correct that your savanna rubbish:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
Broken link.
Marc Verhaegen
200 ka:
Op 18-08-2008 06:58, in artikel 48A9017E...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-08-2008 07:00, in artikel 48A901D7...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-08-2008 06:37, in artikel 48A8FCA1...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> 3aeefd99-6561-4ea3...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, rmacfarl
>> <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> schreef:
>>> On Aug 14, 4:17 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>>>>>>>> *AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South
>>>>>>>> Africa
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Sigh... What is this imbecilic SF raving about?
>>>>>> My little boy (why do SFs keep behaving so ridiculously & childishly ??),
>>>>>> I
>>>>
>>>> No answer of course, only irrelevant evasions:
>>>>
>>>>> You posted your reference with a link that suggested the statements
>>>>> appeared in the respected Australian broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney
>>>>> Morning Herald.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> Fool
>>
>> waste your own time, my little boy
>
> You posted a broken link, Marc. Here's what you posted:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
>
> Notice the three periods? That's part of the link that is missing.
yes, my boy, in my first post i posted the whole thing, no 3 periods
RichTravsky
> On Aug 17, 8:03 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> >
> > >> feces is (even among today's savanna-entrained tribes) compared to
> > >> actual savanna mammals. Everything about humans is water-costly,
> > >> obviously dependence on water has always been priority 2, right after
> > >> dependence on air to breathe.
> >
> > > Yes, DD, but the savanna fantasts here will never understand that.
> >
> > And wetloons never understand that, to the extent that
> > human water dependency is as extreme as they claim, it
> > *does not* represent a limiting factor with regard to
> > hominid distribution and habitat use.
> >
> > Rick Wagler
>
> Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
> (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> truckload of salt too!)
Did you bother to read the article?
In July, Mr. Armstrong, who won the Tour de France seven times, used a whopping
330,000 gallons of water at his lush Spanish-colonial home, with an acre of
gardens and a swimming pool, city water authority officials said.
But city water records suggested that his home has long been a guzzler of water,
using an average of 158,000 gallons a month since January 2007.
Dave, please read before posting. You'll save yourself considerable embarassment.
RichTravsky
>
> SF:
> >> And wetloons never understand that, to the extent that
> >> human water dependency is as extreme as they claim
>
> again, my little" boy, inform:
> we correctly estimate human water needs:
>
> Water Economics
>
> Drinking water
> Among the commonest of mammalian adaptations to a hot, dry habitat is a
> minimal dependence on drinking water. Many small savannah and desert mammals
> (burrowing and nocturnal) do not drink at all. The same is true of some of
> the African ungulates such as the eland and the oryx (Taylor, 1970).
> Carnivores usually need to drink more because their diet consists of
> relatively large amounts of protein, which requires a lot of water for its
> excretion in the urine (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, p. 125). Yet in desert
> habitats even carnivores such as fennecs have the capacity to survive
> without drinking. Many arboreal primates such as langurs almost never drink
> because the moisture in their vegetarian diet is sufficient for their needs
> (Napier and Napier, 1985, p. 151). If the ancestors of human beings had left
> the forests and gone into more open environments, they would have evolved
> the capacity to become more conservative with water as a means of adapting
> to their habitat.
> Precisely the opposite it true. Humans, even without exercise and in
> temperate climates, have to drink much more than any other terrestrial
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/1ea478ea599c5540?dmode=source&hl=en
...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Humans are no long-distance species.
>>> Interesting what can be seen on the Discovery TV Channel. I saw a TV
episode about a nice little African bushman. He was running down some sort
of gazelle or antelope (apparently a perfectly healthy example). He just
kept running after the poor (4-legged) beast and he just kept running and
running and running. After about four hours of running in the mid-day sun,
he was able to simply walk up and toss a spear into the poor exhausted
beast. I presume that he then spent the rest of the day butchering it and
carrying it back. The bushman didn't seem to be the slightest bit fazed
by the whole process. All in a day's work for him I suppose.
...
>> Yes, very interesting, but it's about Bushmen, recently (after the
sapiens LCA) savanna-adapted humans, not about the majority of human beings.
You
> RECENTLY SAVANNA ADAPTED HUMANS???
WHY DO YOU SHOUT?? CAN'T YOU READ??
> So, humans CAN adapt to the savanna?
Why not IYO??
...
RichTravsky
>
> SF too stupid to discern between living humpans & sapiens LCA 200 ka:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/1ea478ea599c5540?dmode=source&hl=en
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Humans are no long-distance species.
>>> Interesting what can be seen on the Discovery TV Channel. I saw a TV
episode about a nice little African bushman. He was running down some sort
of gazelle or antelope (apparently a perfectly healthy example). He just
kept running after the poor (4-legged) beast and he just kept running and
running and running. After about four hours of running in the mid-day sun,
he was able to simply walk up and toss a spear into the poor exhausted
beast. I presume that he then spent the rest of the day butchering it and
carrying it back. The bushman didn't seem to be the slightest bit fazed
by the whole process. All in a day's work for him I suppose.
...
>> Yes, very interesting, but it's about Bushmen, recently (after the
sapiens LCA) savanna-adapted humans, not about the majority of human beings.
You
> RECENTLY SAVANNA ADAPTED HUMANS???
WHY DO YOU SHOUT?? CAN'T YOU READ??
> So, humans CAN adapt to the savanna?
Why not IYO??
...
:-D
RichTravsky
No Marc, you posted a broken link.
Here's the google source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/a118c457d90c7dd8?dmode=source
...
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:33:18 +0200
Subject: The savannah one is pretty much out the window now.
From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
...
You blew it, and now you're lying to cover it up.
RichTravsky
>
> SF too stupid to discern between rare populations today & the sapiens LCA
> 200 ka:
How do you think we got savanna adapted, Marc?
Claudius Denk
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > SF too stupid to discern between rare populations today & the sapiens LCA
> > 200 ka:
>
> How do you think we got savanna adapted, Marc?
Hominids are not savanna adapted.
Marc Verhaegen
>> SF too stupid to discern between rare populations today & the sapiens LCA
>> 200 ka:
SF:
> How do you think we got savanna adapted, Marc?
we?? you're crazy: some bushmen you mean perhaps??
RichTravsky
Bushmen are humans, Marc.
RichTravsky
Tell that to the humans living there.
Claudius Denk
Humans live in the arctic also, you mental retard. Does that mean
humans are arctic adapted?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 12-09-2008 19:23, in artikel 48CAA57B...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
And savanna fools are stupid, my boy.
Makouli
news:C4F34622.1425F%m_ver...@skynet.be...
Marco -- 09/14/2008
==================
"Only fools talk about something they don't
inform about." Marco --01/22/2004
RichTravsky
You mean like Bergman's Rule?
RichTravsky
>
> Savanna Fools now cliams that if A belongs to B, B belongs to A:
Aquatic fool now claims that Bushmen aren't humans...
Marc Verhaegen
Op 22-09-2008 06:33, in artikel 48D72035...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Savanna Fools now claims that if A belongs to B, B belongs to A:
RichTravsky
>
> SF belives that all humans are bushmen:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/1ea478ea599c5540?dmode=source&hl=en
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Humans are no long-distance species.
>>> Interesting what can be seen on the Discovery TV Channel. I saw a TV
episode about a nice little African bushman. He was running down some sort
of gazelle or antelope (apparently a perfectly healthy example). He just
kept running after the poor (4-legged) beast and he just kept running and
running and running. After about four hours of running in the mid-day sun,
he was able to simply walk up and toss a spear into the poor exhausted
beast. I presume that he then spent the rest of the day butchering it and
carrying it back. The bushman didn't seem to be the slightest bit fazed
by the whole process. All in a day's work for him I suppose.
...
>> Yes, very interesting, but it's about Bushmen, recently (after the
sapiens LCA) savanna-adapted humans, not about the majority of human beings.
You
> RECENTLY SAVANNA ADAPTED HUMANS???
WHY DO YOU SHOUT?? CAN'T YOU READ??
> So, humans CAN adapt to the savanna?
Why not IYO??
...
Marc Verhaegen
that.
No doubt, this fool also believes that because some humans walked on the
moon, our ancestors did that.
SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
______
Op 06-10-2008 05:03, in artikel 48E98014...@hotmMOVEail.com,
Lee Olsen
> SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
> that.
How do you think our ancestors out on the hot savanna got to the bones
before the hyenas
did?
Wetapes are stupid stupid stupid.
Marc Verhaegen
Little Olson had ancestors out on the hot savanna:
> How do you think our ancestors out on the hot savanna got to the bones
> before the hyenas did?
Inform a bit, my boy.
Like all stone-using mammals, of course. How else??
What had you thought?? that humans were an exception??
Marc Verhaegen
> before the hyenas did? Wetapes are stupid stupid stupid.
FYI:
Nature 325:305-306, 1987
Origin of hominid bipedalism
Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging
hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating
savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid
ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores
were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or
long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is
inefficient and costly (2,3).
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely
that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a
savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna
mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need
much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
...
Obviously our ancestors have always been waterside, in savannas or
elsewhere.
Claudius Denk
Yes, this is obvious. It's also obvious that you, Marc, have no
hypothesis. More specifically, there is nothing about your
hypothetical thinking that explains the selective emergence of the the
communally territorialistic species that us hominids certainly are.
You don't get it. If we were to take your hypothetical thinking
seriously we'd have to ask why hominids are not more like seals. It's
plainly obvious that hominid adaptations cannot be described as
aquatic. This is so obvious that not even a zealot like yourself is
willing to discuss the details of such. Just like the conventional
theorist who you constantly rail against you are careful to not
discuss the details/implications of your hypothesis. Just like Olsen,
Clark, and the rest of the conventional peanut gallery you do nothing
but ensconce your hypothetical thinking in vagueness and hope beyond
hope that nobody notices that your actual hypothesis is dimwitted
nonsense.
RichTravsky
>
> SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
> that.
How do you think the ability developed?
> No doubt, this fool also believes that because some humans walked on the
> moon, our ancestors did that.
That requires technology, Marc.
Marc Verhaegen
>> SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
>> that.
> How do you think the ability developed?
??
Tell me, my boy.
>> No doubt, this fool also believes that because some humans walked on the
>> moon, our ancestors did that.
> That requires technology, Marc.
My little boy, running after kudus also requires carrying drinking water.
RichTravsky
>
> >> SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
> >> that.
>
> > How do you think the ability developed?
>
> ??
> Tell me, my boy.
Easy Marc. Selection.
> >> No doubt, this fool also believes that because some humans walked on the
> >> moon, our ancestors did that.
>
> > That requires technology, Marc.
>
> My little boy, running after kudus also requires carrying drinking water.
> SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
No, it does not require *carrying* drinking water. After hunting, if thirsty, then
go to water. Is this too hard for you to figure out?
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
>>>> that.
>>> How do you think the ability developed?
>> ?? Tell me, my boy.
> Easy Marc. Selection.
You're simply stupid, Travsky: humans are +-everything the opposite of
savanna mammals: why not inform a bit??
Nature 325:305-306, 1987
Origin of hominid bipedalism
Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging
hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating
savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid
ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores
were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or
long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is
inefficient and costly (2,3).
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely
that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a
savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna
mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need
much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in
water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the
savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many
anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for
bipedalism, while they should know there are much better explanations
(9-11).
1. Sinclair, A. R. E., Leakey, M. D. & Norton, M. Nature 324, 307
(1986).
2. Washburn, S. L. & Moore, R. Ape Into Human, 77-78 (Little, Brow and
Company, Boston, 1980).
3. Wheeler, P. E. J. Hum. Evol. 13, 91 (1984).
4. Macfarlane, W. V. in Adaptations of Domestic Animals (ed. Hafez,
E.) 164-182 (Lea and Febifer, Philadelphia, 1968).
5. Montagna, W. in Biological Anthropology (ed. Katz, S. H.) 341-351
(Freeman, San Francisco, 1975).
6. McFarland, W.N., Pough, F.H., Cade, T.J. & Heiser, J. B. Vertebrate
Life, 674 (Collier Macmillan, London,1979).
7. McFarland, D. Animal Behaviour, 267 (Pitman, London, 1985).
8. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Desert Animals, 67 (Dover Publications, New
York, 1979).
9. Hardy, A. C. New Scient. 7, 642 (1960).
10. Morgan, E. The Aquatic Ape (Souvenir, London, 1982).
11. Verhaegen, M. J. B. Med. Hypotheses 16,17 (1985).
RichTravsky
>
> >>>> SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
> >>>> that.
>
> >>> How do you think the ability developed?
>
> >> ?? Tell me, my boy.
>
> > Easy Marc. Selection.
>
> You're simply stupid, Travsky: humans are +-everything the opposite of
> savanna mammals: why not inform a bit??
But you yourself said humans are savanna adapted. Want me to post the quote
again?
> Nature 325:305-306, 1987
> Origin of hominid bipedalism
1987? ;)
Marc Verhaegen
liar: i said that bushmen are savanna adapted
Lee Olsen
Wetloon:
>
> liar: i said that bushmen are savanna adapted
So who made the stone tools found on the savanna 2.5 mya, lions?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-11-2008 01:35, in artikel
6db111dc-65d7-4a2f...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
??
my little little boy, try at least to be a bit relevant
:-D
yes, my little boy:
Tobias 1995
łWe were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! ... All the former savannah
supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier words ...˛
Wood 1996
łthe Śsavannahą hypothesis of human origins, in which the cooling begat the
savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now discredited˛
Stringer 1997
łOne of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in explaining the
origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water, that would
forced them to walk upright ...˛
Tobias 1998
łBamford 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 ŚLucyą was found, and from
Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim Whiteąs team found Ardipithecus ramidus ...
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 Ma having lived in a woodland
or forest niche, not savannah ... if ever our earliest ancestors were
savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there˛
Stringer 2001
łIn the past 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.˛
Groves & Cameron 2004
łNor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Elaine Morgan has long
argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best explained as a legacy of
a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes upright
posture to cope with increased water depth as our ancestors foraged farther
and further from the lake or seashore.˛
Wrangham 2005
łHere I follow the conventional assumption that hominins began in the
savanna ... the composition of the Okavango as a network of islands could
favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage bipedalism as
facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic environments, an
inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or hydrodynamically
offers rich scenarios.˛
Alemseged 2006
łI believe we should just put the savannah theory aside. I think they
basically became biped while they were living in a wooded, covered
environment ...˛
Thorpe et al. 2007
ł... early hominins occupied woodland environments, not open or even
bush-savannah environments (such as sites including Allia Bay, Aramis, Assa
Issie and now Laetoli) ... they retained long grasping forelimbs, which are
more obviously relevant in an arboreal context...˛
Lee Olsen
Pervert, try at least to be a bit relevant
> 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed
By who, the same wetloons who don't know a mountain beaver from a
capybara?
:-D
> yes, my little boy:
Pervert says:
> Tobias 1995
> ³We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! ... All the former savannah
> supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier words ...²
He knows more than, Wang, McHenry, and Potts? Get a life, werloon.
> Wood 1996
> ³the Œsavannah¹ hypothesis of human origins, in which the cooling begat the
> savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now discredited²
1996??? Can't you find something from this century?
> Stringer 1997
> ³One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in explaining the
> origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water, that would
> forced them to walk upright ...²
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/assets/chimp_shot.jpg
> Tobias 1998
>... not savannah ... if ever our earliest ancestors were
> savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
> urinators there²
How do you think made the stone tools found on the savanna, lions?
> Stringer 2001
> ³In the past 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).
Loon, try reading Kano (1992), your ignorance is appalling for a
scientist.
On page 125 is a photo of a pygmy chimp walking bipedally.
The caption reads: “It is not unusual to see a pygmy chimpanzee walk
bipedally over a distance of 20 m while carrying sugarcane.”
But never that far in water. No water needed, only food.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 18-11-2008 06:13, in artikel
c34e2e56-4702-4c1b...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> On Nov 17, 6:09 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> Pervert, try at least to be a bit relevant
>
>> 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed
yes it has:
:-D
yes, my little boy:
Tobias 1995
łWe were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! ... All the former savannah
supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier words ...˛
Wood 1996
łthe Śsavannahą hypothesis of human origins, in which the cooling begat the
savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now discredited˛
Stringer 1997
łOne of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in explaining the
origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water, that would
forced them to walk upright ...˛
Tobias 1998
łBamford 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 ŚLucyą was found, and from
Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim Whiteąs team found Ardipithecus ramidus ...
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 Ma having lived in a woodland
or forest niche, not savannah ... if ever our earliest ancestors were
savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there˛
Stringer 2001
łIn the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models for the origins of
bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can facilitate bipedal
Lee Olsen
> yes, my little boy:
Pervert, why don't you find a park bench to sit on?
>
> Tobias 1995
>
> Wood 1996
>
> Stringer 1997
>
> Tobias 1998
Last century BS.
That says it all, Marc has slandered Hardy, by claiming no aquatic in
the AAT:
"To the contrary, they suggest we were littoral. our ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae..."
Marc is a hypocrite who demands changes for AAT since Hardy, yet
refuses to allow any advances
in the ST since Raymond Dart. Times change wetloon, you and your old
fogies need to change with it.
>
>
> Groves & Cameron 2004
Lip service with no original research to back up the fantasy.
>
> Wrangham 2005
> ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins began in the
> savanna ... >
Hominids, who cares?
> Alemseged 2006
> ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside. I think they
> basically became biped while they were living in a wooded, covered
> environment ...²
The man thinks he is still debating Raymond Dart.
Classic wooden-man statement that explains nothing. If the trees had
anything to do with
why Homo has endurant bipedalism, then chimps and Lucy should had
bigger brains than us.
Fact: They only have brains bigger than wetloons.
>
> Thorpe et al. 2007
> ³... early hominins
Bipedalism, without some qualifier is a overly simplistic term that
explains nothing. It is used by people who have no
evidence. We walk different than Chimps and Lucy, our endurant
bipedalism is different than
all the rest of these creatures. The real issue in 2008, is why is
Homo different, not why early hominins
are different.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000. 29:125–46
Copyright
c 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
AUSTRALOPITHECUS TO HOMO: Transformations
in Body andMind
Henry M. McHenry and Katherine Coffing
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis,
California 95616;
e-mail: hmmc...@ucdavis.edu, keco...@ucdavis.edu
Key Words postcranium, craniodental morphology, encephalization
Abstract "Significant changes occurred in human evolution between 2.5
and 1.8
million years ago. Stone tools first appeared, brains expanded, bodies
enlarged, sexual
dimorphism in body size decreased, limb proportions changed, cheek
teeth reduced
in size, and crania began to share more unique features with later
Homo. Although
the two earliest species of Homo, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis,
retained many primitive
features in common with australopithecine species, they both shared
key unique
features with later species of Homo. Two of the most conspicuous
shared derived characters
were the sizes of the brain and masticatory apparatus relative to body
weight.
Despite the shared derived characters of H. habilis and H.
rudolfensis, one unexpected
complication in the transition from australopithecine to Homo was that
the postcranial
anatomy of H. habilis retained many australopithecine characteristics.
H. rudolfensis,
however, seems to have had a more human-like body plan, similar to
later species
of Homo. H. rudolfensis may therefore represent a link between
Australopithecus
and Homo."
The Savanna Theory is about Homo (see Potts 1997 for a complete
review), not some silly degree
of uprightedness shared by G, pan, Lucy, gibbons, and orangs. They all
are bipedal to some degree,
but none of them like Homo's endurant brand of bipedalism. We clearly
have weaned ourselves from the trees,
have the largest brains, and spent the most amount of time on the
savanna than any of
our early ancestors from 2.5 to 1.8 mya.
Marc Verhaegen
>> Tobias 1995
>> Wood 1996
>> Stringer 1997
>> Tobias 1998
> Last century BS.
My little boy, if IYO Wood & Tobias & Stringer ar BS, what is your mMr.Moore
then?? :-DDD
:-D
yes, my little boy:
łI believe we should just put the savannah theory aside. I think they
basically became biped while they were living in a wooded, covered
Lee Olsen
No answer.
FYI:
On Nov 18, 12:27 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> Tobias 1995
>
> Wood 1996
>
> Stringer 1997
>
> Tobias 1998
Last century BS.
That says it all, Marc has slandered Hardy, by claiming no aquatic in
the AAT:
"To the contrary, they suggest we were littoral. our ancestors were
seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
shell-, crayfish, algae..."
Marc is a hypocrite who demands changes for AAT since Hardy, yet
refuses to allow any advances
in the ST since Raymond Dart. Times change wetloon, you and your old
fogies need to change with it.
>
>
> Groves & Cameron 2004
Lip service with no original research to back up the fantasy.
>
> Wrangham 2005
> ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins began in the
> savanna ... >
Hominids, who cares?
> Alemseged 2006
> ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside. I think they
> basically became biped while they were living in a wooded, covered
> environment ...²
The man thinks he is still debating Raymond Dart.
Classic wooden-man statement that explains nothing. If the trees had
anything to do with
why Homo has endurant bipedalism, then chimps and Lucy should have
Marc Verhaegen
> Marc is a hypocrite who demands changes for AAT since Hardy, yet
> refuses to allow any advances in the ST since Raymond Dart.
my little boy, there are still loons who believe our ancestors 2 Ma ran
after kudus
Lee Olsen
> some kudu runner-thrower:
>
> > Marc is a hypocrite who demands changes for AAT since Hardy, yet
> > refuses to allow any advances in the ST since Raymond Dart.
>
> my little boy,
Pervert says:
> there are still loons who believe our ancestors 2 Ma ran
> after kudus
http://www.marathonkasterlee.be/Uitslag%20Halve%20Marathon%202006.htm
Mario Vaneechoutte 01:39:18
Excellent time Mario, no kudu can top a 01:39:18!
Marc Verhaegen
>> some kudu runner-thrower:
>>> Marc is a hypocrite who demands changes for AAT since Hardy, yet
>>> refuses to allow any advances in the ST since Raymond Dart.
>> my little boy,
> Pervert says:
>> there are still loons who believe our ancestors 2 Ma ran
>> after kudus
> http://www.marathonkasterlee.be/Uitslag%20Halve%20Marathon%202006.htm
> Mario Vaneechoutte 01:39:18
> Excellent time Mario, no kudu can top a 01:39:18!
:-DDD
halve marathon = 21 km
savanna fools are stupid stupid stupid
Lee Olsen
>
> halve marathon = 21 km
Learn to read, wetloon.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
"the runs Liebenberg observed lasted as long as six-and-a-half hours
and covered as many as twenty-two miles."
"as long as..as many as" doesn't mean they all lasted that long.
Mario is still faster.
wetloons are stupid stupid stupid
RichTravsky
Bushmen are human, little boy.