tigre & ape
Marc Verhaegen
Lee Olsen
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C94toea8KqU
>
> Thanks, Mario.
>
> --Marc
Marc Verhaegen
Lee Olsen
> >http://tinyurl.com/44kbur
"Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned
it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating
some of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of
our overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to
drown before you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies
swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do
with the real situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the
Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting
maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron M. Smith
Thanks Cameron, good advice.
Day Brown
of hominids.
There is the point where the waterhole water is only inches deep, and
then its the turn of the hominids to stab the crocks with their
digging sticks for dinner. I never suggested that a mother would want
to throw a baby into the water, but if by doing so she feeds a crock
rather than a lion, she'd do better to deny the lion the reward for
hominid predation. the big cats have been much better at it than
crocks.
I fail to see why aquatic adaptations required hominids to *only* rely
on that ecosystem, It makes more sense that the hominids which could
exploit BOTH savannah and water courses would do better. And this is
egzactly what we find associated with the oldest hominid skull yet
found, at Chad, which at the time was a varied seasonal riverine
floodplain like the Okavango.
Depending on what time of year, it was either dry grassland with
stagnant bayous, or wet season lushness with raging torrents dividing
up the resource bases. The hominids that could swim got to eat the
fruit on the other side, while those that couldnt are no longer in the
gene pool.
Crocks in the channel would be a concern, but herd animals are locked
into habit, and will try to cross the water at the same point every
year. That's where the crocks will be. The hominids are smart enuf to
figure this out, and dont go there.
Lee Olsen
Another lip-service reply, lacking any sort of data. Nothing but the
usual, know nothing tripe.
Su Solomon has been there, Smilth has been there, they say different,
but you know better than they?
"Mind you, its amazing how people can delude themselves into
believing
the impossible! And I would put the: "nah I wont get taken by a croc,
'cause the crocs are small and not there etc. into the class called:
'logical fantasies". This can be believed by the most "intelligent"
people, including Johanson! I was doing a dig at Alia Bay (south of
Koobi Fora) in '87, and each afternoon when we finished for the day,
we
would go down to the shores of Lake Turkana and have a wash. People
("intelligent white people") would throw themselves in the water and
swim and wash, I stayed at the back in knee deep water, praying that
if
there were any crocs around at the time, they would take the stupid
"B's" who were further out!" Su Solomon
Davidson, I. & Solomon, S. (1990) Was OH 27 the victim of a crocodile
attack?. In Solomon, S., Davidson, I. & Watson, D. (eds) Problem
Solving in Taphonomy: Archaeological & Palaeontological Studies from
Europe, Africa & Oceania. Tempus 2. Anthropology Museum, University
of
Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland. 198 - 206.
Marc Verhaegen
b543e34d-ee37-463a...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Day Brown
<dayb...@hughes.net> schreef:
>> "Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
>> point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned
>> it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
>> spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating
>> some of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of
>> our overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
>> with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
>> can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to
>> drown before you have time to screech for help.
>> The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
>> hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
>> advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
>> crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
>> fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
>> whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
>> hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
>> described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies
>> swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do
>> with the real situation of predator avoidance in Africa.
:-D
This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with AAT.
Why don't these fanatics inform a bit before talking?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>> Ask the
>> Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting
>> maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron M. Smith
Mr.Smith apparently doesn't know what AAT means: his blabla is irrelevant.
AAT is about ancestral (Plio)Pleistocene Homo populations (after the H/P
split c.5 Ma) dispersing along the coasts (incl.Java & Flores) & from there
along the waterways inland.
> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely varied adaptability
> of hominids.
> There is the point where the waterhole water is only inches deep, and
> then its the turn of the hominids to stab the crocks with their
> digging sticks for dinner. I never suggested that a mother would want
> to throw a baby into the water, but if by doing so she feeds a crock
> rather than a lion, she'd do better to deny the lion the reward for
> hominid predation. the big cats have been much better at it than
> crocks.
> I fail to see why aquatic adaptations required hominids to *only* rely
> on that ecosystem, It makes more sense that the hominids which could
> exploit BOTH savannah and water courses would do better. And this is
> egzactly what we find associated with the oldest hominid skull yet
> found, at Chad, which at the time was a varied seasonal riverine
> floodplain like the Okavango.
Waterside (both land & water) ok, but not savanna: in that case we had had a
keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (à la Olson) with sharper teeth, higher
running speed, higher body temperature, higher daily temp.fluctuations, less
sweating, less dependence on sodium, water, iodine, a short sun-reflecting
fur, no SC fat, no plantigrady, etc., but we see the opposite in humans.
There's not the slightest indication for any savanna adaptation in human
ancestors. Of course, some Homo populations could have lived next to rivers
in savannas or elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they were savanna dwellers:
they were waterside omnivores.
R.Wrangham 2005
"The delta hypothesis: hominoid ecology and hominin origins"
in D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley eds
"Interpreting the Past:
Essays on Human, Primate and Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam"
Brill Ac.Publ.Inc, Boston MA, pp.231-242
= example of people who want to keep the old savanna nonsense in combination
with waterside ideas (BTW, it's about apiths, not about Homo, IOW,
irrelevant to AAT).
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Lee Olsen
>
> :-D
> This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with AAT.
Nothing has anything to do with AAT, because never existed.
FYI:
Message-ID: <1124421294.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Jason Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real sleazebag
sociopath. If it makes you feel
better to repeat ad nauseum that no one has an argument against your
scenario, you really ought to get your medication adjusted. It might
actually make you less of a dickhead.
You are asking for someone to contradict something
that you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to prove a
negative. This isn't science, though I suspect you don't know what
science is and as such will continue your mentally ill diatribes."
http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html
Jim Moore:
"Marc Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an AAT/H
claim that
he doesn't make himself. But then taking umbrage seems to be a
specialty with him;
his online method tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole
content of his
newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same, non-responsive,
paragraphs
(earning him the nickname "macro-man" after the usual technique for
doing that),
and, starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing his
position to Wegener,
Galileo, etc. These methods certainly don't help his argument,
instead placing his online
newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon."
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/49ff7eb0fc201786
Cj
news:C4340A8C.1193F%m_ver...@skynet.be...
Marc:
Since you only have one idiosyncratic thing to say why do you have to repeat
it endlessly?
Marc Verhaegen
Op 22-04-2008 22:44, in artikel p7adnWb7osfZ05PV...@gwi.net, Cj
<C...@mist.net> schreef:
>> keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (ą la Olson) with sharper teeth, higher
Lee Olsen
> My little boy,
I see you are still obsessed with chasing little boys where there
aren't any.
Get some help, pervert.
Claudius Denk
> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>
> news:C4340A8C.1193F%m_ver...@skynet.be...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Op 22-04-2008 02:53, in artikel
> > Brown
> > <daybr...@hughes.net> schreef:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, either get a real hypothesis or get a life. (Same goes for
Olsen and Clark.)
Lee Olsen
>
> Yeah, either get a real hypothesis or get a life.
When do you think you will be getting a hypothesis of your own?
Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
hundred words of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time, then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
mclark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you have a URL for that new hypothesis of yours, Dimmy?
(tick, tock, tick, tock)
mclark
> On Apr 22, 4:42 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yeah, either get a real hypothesis or get a life. (Same goes for
> > Olsen and Clark.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Did you have a URL for that new hypothesis of yours, Dimmy?
>
> - Show quoted text -
(Tick, tock, tick, tock)
Claudius Denk
Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say. And he keeps saying it
over and over. Clark doesn't even have this and he keeps posting his
content free whining over and over.
Marc Verhaegen
done to them?? Why can't they keep me out of their "discussions"?? :-(
> Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
No, no, I have a lot of non-cractic things to say, eg, on apith lifestyle:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=
10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&id=37960
http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/figure/10.1371_journa
l.pbio.0030380.g001-L.jpg
Lee Olsen
>
> Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say. And he keeps saying it
> over and over. Clark doesn't even have this and he keeps posting his
> content free whining over and over.
Content free misinformation from McGinn:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
9. Then you should stop;pissing into it.
10 Speak for yourself. I see just fine at night.
11. Uh, er. These artifacts don't come with notes attached to them
that
indicate how they were actually used.
12. Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few thousand
years ago.
13. So Paul, now that you've, finally, come to accept the fact that
early
hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in treed habitat
Lee Olsen
> > Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
>
> No, no,
Here is what the professionals have to say about you:
Marc Verhaegen
> Here is what the professionals have to say about you:
> http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
> Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
Yes, my boy, that's why we wrote this paper together:
M Verhaegen, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender & N Oser 2007
"The original econiche of the genus Homo: Open Plain or Waterside?"
pp.155-186 in SI Muñoz ed.
"Ecology Research Progress"
Novapublishers NY
:-D
Lee Olsen
> SF:
>
> > Here is what the professionals have to say about you:
> >http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
> > Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
> > idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>
> Yes, my boy,
Still lusting after boys are you?
>that's why we wrote this paper together:
> M Verhaegen, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender & N Oser 2007
> "The original econiche of the genus Homo: Open Plain or Waterside?"
> pp.155-186 in SI Muñoz ed.
> "Ecology Research Progress"
> Novapublishers NY
He was referring to the conference, fool. :-D
BTW, how is the marathon runner, Vaneechoutte, doing these days?
Claudius Denk
> Why can't netloons like Olson & Denk stop talking about me?? What have I
> done to them?? Why can't they keep me out of their "discussions"?? :-(
>
> > Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
>
> No, no, I have a lot of non-cractic things to say, eg, on apith lifestyle
Your thinking is so vague and sketchy it's almost indistinguishable
from conventional theory. Like Lee, Gerrrit, and Clark, you've never
had any real dispute with the perfectly sensible notion that early
hominids, both A'pith and HE, resided primarily in treed habitat. You
entitle your vague notions aquatic and those nitwits entitle their
vague notions savanna. None of you have a real evolutionary
hypothesis or a clue of how to begin towards such.
mclark
That's why we listen to you, Dink. Now, where
was that URL to your new hypothesis? I seem
to have misplaced it.
Claudius Denk
Clark, you are incapable of addressing content and you have no
hypothesis of your own. One wonders why you even bother to
participate in this NG. You seem to be convinced that Marc is wrong.
But Marc's thinking is so vague and your objections are vaguer
still.
You need to come to grips with the fact that evolutionary theory is a
science and as such the evidence is the ultimate arbitrator. This is
the way it is. Get used to it. Whining isn't going to make any
difference.
Lee Olsen
>
> Clark, you are incapable of addressing content
Says the master of no-content posts:
1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3 Apiths never ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree.
4 Climate change is not happening presently.
5 Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5
mya?
9. Then you should stop;pissing into it.
10 Speak for yourself. I see just fine at night.
11. Uh, er. These artifacts don't come with notes attached to them
that
indicate how they were actually used.
12. Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few thousand
years ago.
13. So Paul, now that you've, finally, come to accept the fact that
early
hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in treed habitat
>and you have no
> hypothesis of your own.
And you are a brainless illiterate that claims to have a hypothesis.
Claudius Denk
real hypothesis anyway.
So now you admit that spears could be useful for fishing. And I
suspect if I were to continue to poke at you long enough you'd also
eventually admit that spears could be useful in treed habitat also.
This being the case one can only wonder why it is you are so
insistent
that hominid evolution primarily involved a long distance running/
walking lifestyle in treeless savanna habitat. Can you explain this
to us?
Marc Verhaegen
> hominids, both A'pith and HE, resided primarily in treed habitat.
Again: IMO:
Gracile apiths & aethiopicus = aquarboreal = vertical wading, hanging,
climbing, floating & possibly parttime Kwing, in swamp forests
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figure&doi=
10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&id=37960
http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/figure/10.1371_journa
l.pbio.0030380.g001-L.jpg
Diet & locomotion overlapping with:
Robust apith = predom.bipedal wading & KWing in wetlands, feeding on AHV
(aq.herbaceous vegetation google "Ndoki gorilla)", papyrus, sedges &
waterside grasses (rice), possibly bamboo & not unlikely HSIs (hard-shelled
invertebrates, see Shabel 2007 & 2008 AAPA abstracts)
H.erectus is found amid marine & freshwater shells in river deltas (eg,
Mojokerto) & later river/lake-side, parttime diving for shellfish, probably
parttime wading for aq.vegetation, collecting eggs, possibly coconuts,
occasionally butchering turtles, whales, bovids etc.
H.floresiensis & H.georgicus seem to have had still arm-hanging adaptations.
Every detail is based on comparative arguments.
IWO, most early hominids (incl.habilis & possibly georgicus) seem to have
been partially arboreal, but this is not so likely for H.erectus s.s. (too
heavy).
I guess the rel.small-brained hominids were partially arboreal (apiths,
Afr.apes, habilis, ?Dmanisi, Flores... google "aquarboreal"), but the
thicker-boned & larger-brained erectus (mojokertensis etc.) relied more on
parttime diving (abundant DHA etc.).
Lee Olsen
> I don't know what you're so nervous about. It's not like you have a
> real hypothesis anyway.
ROFL, like you do?
Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
hundred words of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
>
> So now you admit that spears could be useful for fishing.
Try to be honest for once in you life, you said this not me:
Message-ID:
<f8b38908-51f8-40f9...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Claud: " Is this true? Do you really believe that spears couldn't be
used for fish? Why not?"
You made that up, just as you make up all your silly posts. The reason
you can't find a quote from me is because I never said anything about
spears couldn't be used for fishing. The problem is, you misread what
I said, and now you are trying to lie your head out of your asshole.
Won't work, so time to put up or shut up,
quote me directy, you brainless idiot.
Claudius Denk
> > had any real dispute with the perfectly sensible notion that early
> > hominids, both A'pith and HE, resided primarily in treed habitat.
>
> Again: IMO:
>
> Gracile apiths & aethiopicus = aquarboreal = vertical wading, hanging,
> climbing, floating & possibly parttime Kwing, in swamp
Speculative nonsense.
forestshttp://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=slideshow&type=figu...
> 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&id=37960http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/figure/10.1371...
> l.pbio.0030380.g001-L.jpg
> Diet & locomotion overlapping with:
> Robust apith = predom.bipedal wading & KWing in wetlands, feeding on AHV
> (aq.herbaceous vegetation google "Ndoki gorilla)", papyrus, sedges &
> waterside grasses (rice), possibly bamboo & not unlikely HSIs (hard-shelled
> invertebrates, see Shabel 2007 & 2008 AAPA abstracts)
>
> H.erectus is found amid marine & freshwater shells in river deltas (eg,
> Mojokerto) & later river/lake-side, parttime diving for shellfish, probably
> parttime wading for aq.vegetation, collecting eggs, possibly coconuts,
> occasionally butchering turtles, whales, bovids etc.
> H.floresiensis & H.georgicus seem to have had still arm-hanging adaptations.
I don't see the point of this speculation any more than I see the
point of Lee Olsen's treeless savanna speculations.
>
> Every detail is based on comparative arguments.
Why would anybody care. Comparative techniques are such a small part
of what is relevant in any kind of scenario construction.
>
> IWO, most early hominids (incl.habilis & possibly georgicus) seem to have
> been partially arboreal, but this is not so likely for H.erectus s.s. (too
> heavy).
Why not?
>
> I guess the rel.small-brained hominids were partially arboreal (apiths,
> Afr.apes, habilis, ?Dmanisi, Flores... google "aquarboreal"), but the
> thicker-boned & larger-brained erectus (mojokertensis etc.) relied more on
> parttime diving (abundant DHA etc.).
Speculative nonsense.
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 24, 9:19 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what you're so nervous about. It's not like you have a
> > real hypothesis anyway.
>
> ROFL, like you do?
>
> Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
> hundred words of
> your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
> the
> intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
> comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
> extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
> taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
> time,
> then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
>
>
>
> > So now you admit that spears could be useful for fishing.
>
> Try to be honest for once in you life, you said this not me:
> Message-ID:
> Claud: " Is this true? Do you really believe that spears couldn't be
> used for fish? Why not?"
>
> You made that up, just as you make up all your silly posts. The reason
> you can't find a quote from me is because I never said anything about
> spears couldn't be used for fishing. The problem is, you misread what
> I said, and now you are trying to lie your head out of your asshole.
> Won't work, so time to put up or shut up,
> quote me directy, you brainless idiot.
I think everybody can see for themselves what you did or didn't say.
The important thing is that you do not deny that spears could be
useful in *many* more ways than in the context of a hunting/gathering
lifestyle limited to treeless savanna habitat that you propose.
Right? (Answer the question you evasive nitwit.)
Lee Olsen
>
> Speculative nonsense:
1. Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns.
2. Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats.
3. Apiths never ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree.
4. Climate change is not happening presently.
5. Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds
of thousand if not millions of years.
6. Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion.
7. Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
8. ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about
2.5
mya?
9. Then you should stop;pissing into it.
10. Speak for yourself. I see just fine at night.
Claudius Denk
>
> - Show quoted text -
No response.
Lee Olsen
Another lie. There was a response, the problem is, you can't read.
What part of this are you too stupid to understand?
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <f8b38908-51f8-40f9-8119-2a1fdea40...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
> > > Claud: " Is this true? Do you really believe that spears couldn't be
> > > used for fish? Why not?"
You said that, not me. It's a strawman claim, proven by the fact you
can't quote me directly. You lied, there is no such record.
Put up or shut up, asshole, quote me directly. If you can't, it is an
admission you lied.
Claudius Denk
Just think how much easier all of this would have been if you simply
made the retraction.
Claudius Denk
Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do not think--
unless it's a secret or something.
Is it a secret?
mclark
What, the URL for your "new and improved" hypothesis?
I guess.....
Claudius Denk
Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've had
going on for about 5 years now? Why do you refer to it as new and
improved? And why don't you just use a search engine? I'm sure you'd
have no trouble finding it if you'd just put some effort into it.
Give it a try.
Let me know if you need help finding searchable words and phrases.
mclark
> On Apr 24, 1:04 pm, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:32 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do not think--
> > > unless it's a secret or something.
>
> > > Is it a secret?
>
> > What, the URL for your "new and improved" hypothesis?
> > I guess.....
>
> Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've had
> going on for about 5 years now? Why do you refer to it as new and
> improved?
This is your "old" hypothesis:
http://tinyurl.com/8fomk
This is the date and message ID:
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c1ea5f28-1789-45ae-
b4aa-833...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
...and this is what you said:
"You have to pretend its unreadable and put
links to long forgotten versions of the hypothesis.
This is an old, old version. I've presented newer versions. Why do
you not refer them?
Why not refer to my newer version you evasive jackass.[?]"
> And why don't you just use a search engine? I'm sure you'd
> have no trouble finding it if you'd just put some effort into it.
> Give it a try.
Now who's being evasive? And you can stuff your search
engine. A real scientist has no trouble pointing to his own
work. Of course you're not one of those, are you?
> Let me know if you need help finding searchable words and phrases.
Let me know if I can help you find your descending colon.
I think that's probably where you'll find your "hypothesis".
Lee Olsen
> Just think how much easier all of this would have been if you simply
> made the retraction.
Make a retraction about what, the strawman you set up?
Lee Olsen
> Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do not think--
> unless it's a secret or something.
I already did tell you, how many times does something have to be
repeted for your
benifit?
Lee Olsen
>
> Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've had
> going on for about 5 years now?
You don't have a hypothesis, you have a manifesto based on imagining
voices saying " spears couldn't be used for fish." when they said no
such thing.
You have a manifesto based on "Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats."
You have a manifesto based on the delusions of an illiterate.
Cj
news:C435946D.119D5%m_ver...@skynet.be...
Endless reiteration of your favorite lunacy doesn't improve either your
logic or your understanding of biology. I gather that this citation is from
a symposium or conference text and escaped any serious peer review. Is it a
rule in your "field" to always include a paper or two for humor's sake?
Cj
Marc Verhaegen
>> M Verhaegen, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender & N Oser 2007
>> "The original econiche of the genus Homo: Open Plain or Waterside?"
>> pp.155-186 in SI Muñoz ed.
>> "Ecology Research Progress"
>> Novapublishers NY
SF:
> How the hell does anything you author get past peer review?
How *not*, my little boy??
It's obvious: otherwise you had found at least 1 little objection...
:-D
Lee Olsen
> It's obvious: otherwise you had found at least 1 little objection...
>
:-D
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvS7251oSE-Vw5Lg_LDZo3-lvoBgD909KG480
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 24, 10:48 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've had
> > going on for about 5 years now?
>
> You don't have a hypothesis, you have a manifesto based on imagining
> voices saying " spears couldn't be used for fish." when they said no
> such thing.
Manifesto? Why don't you refer directly to the words in my,
"manifesto," and explain to our audience why you say this.
What are you afraid of?
>
> You have a manifesto based on "Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats."
I have no idea what you are taking about. Why not quote my hypothesis
directly? Isn't this like the twentieth time I've suggested you refer
directly to my words? What's the problem? Are you afraid to quote my
hypothesis directly?
>
Marc Verhaegen
>> It's obvious: otherwise you had found at least 1 little objection...
>> :-D
SF:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvS7251oSE-Vw5Lg_LDZo3-lvoBgD909KG480
My little boy, this is totally irrelevant. Why don't you inform first??
You're becoming more & more childish.
Lee Olsen
>
>
>
> > You have a manifesto based on "Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats."
>
> I have no idea what you are taking about. Why not quote my hypothesis
> directly?
I did you brainless idiot, don't you remember what you write? If your
memory
is as short as the rest of your attributes, you could try the forum
search box. Do you need help? Don't be embarrassed, just ask for
help.
Lee Olsen
> >> It's obvious: otherwise you had found at least 1 little objection...
> >> :-D
>
> SF:
>
> >http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvS7251oSE-Vw5Lg_LDZo3-lvoBgD909KG480
>
> My little boy,
Still lusting after little boys, pervert?
FYI:
Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture
by
Cameron M. Smith
PhD, Department of Archaeology
"If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of
time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the following
points.
1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and, despite
what was presented at this lecture, it has been found to be severely
wanting. AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is
known as a post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does
not really have a coherent body of theory, only a few disassociated
(non)explanations for a few biological characteristics of the genus
Homo. People should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable
alternative' as claimed at the lecture.
2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory device. It
is poorly regarded because it has been examined and found to be
invalid. It is not poorly regarded because of some scientific cover-up
or paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot
accept change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it
has been pointed out that science is the worst place to try to hide
anything because fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is
simply a theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
anthropologists.
3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to Simon Fraser
University, and the sponsoring hosts. How this pop/crypto/science
'theory' was given equal billing with real research efforts is beyond
me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of lectures
dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute of Humanities' 'Old
Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A Darwinian Perspective on Our Past,
Present and Future' lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when
examined for internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor Erich von
Daniken to speak about spaceship depictions in Maya tombs.
Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned
it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating
some of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of
our overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to
drown before you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies
swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do
with the real situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the
Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting
maniacs swim in that lake.
There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit. Please keep in
mind, the 'savanna hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but
that does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated because
of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's opinion, and everyone is
entitled to an opinion'. Opinion is not the same thing as scientific
theory.
The damage of this lecture was to those who came to the lecture
expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was a viable body of
theory. It is not, and it does not deserve that label."
Cheers,
Cameron M. Smith
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 25, 6:09 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 10:48 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've had
> > > going on for about 5 years now?
>
> > You don't have a hypothesis, you have a manifesto based on imagining
> > voices saying " spears couldn't be used for fish." when they said no
> > such thing.
>
> Manifesto? Why don't you refer directly to the words in my,
> "manifesto," and explain to our audience why you say this.
No response?
> What are you afraid of?
>
>
>
> > You have a manifesto based on "Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats."
>
> I have no idea what you are taking about. Why not quote my hypothesis
> directly? Isn't this like the twentieth time I've suggested you refer
> directly to my words? What's the problem? Are you afraid to quote my
> hypothesis directly?
No response.
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 27, 8:55 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > You have a manifesto based on "Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats."
>
> > I have no idea what you are taking about. Why not quote my hypothesis
> > directly?
>
> I did you brainless idiot, don't you remember what you write?
My hypothesis makes no mention of the relative lineage of lions and
sabertooth cats. And, as I've mentioned a number of times, this issue
is irrelevant to my hypothesis AFAIC.
Can you tell us why you think its relevant. Or is it a secret?
Claudius Denk
> On Apr 25, 12:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 1:04 pm, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 2:32 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do not think--
> > > > unless it's a secret or something.
>
> > > > Is it a secret?
>
> > > What, the URL for your "new and improved" hypothesis?
> > > I guess.....
>
> > Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've had
> > going on for about 5 years now? Why do you refer to it as new and
> > improved?
>
> This is your "old" hypothesis:http://tinyurl.com/8fomk
Uh huh.
>
> This is the date and message ID:
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <c1ea5f28-1789-45ae-
> b4aa-833ab2d1b...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
>
> ...and this is what you said:
>
> "You have to pretend its unreadable and put
> links to long forgotten versions of the hypothesis.
>
> This is an old, old version. I've presented newer versions. Why do
> you not refer them?
>
> Why not refer to my newer version you evasive jackass.[?]"
>
> > And why don't you just use a search engine? I'm sure you'd
> > have no trouble finding it if you'd just put some effort into it.
> > Give it a try.
>
> Now who's being evasive? And you can stuff your search
> engine. A real scientist has no trouble pointing to his own
> work. Of course you're not one of those, are you?
Try doing a search for the phrase, "the hypothesis that ends all
debate"
Let us know how this works out.
Lee Olsen
>
> No response?
You got a response, what part "you are an illiterate" are you to
stupid to understand?
Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
to continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."
Dan Barnes: "..a number of people have suggested that the best thing
you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and come back
again."
Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
of it, that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"
Lee Olsen
Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> My hypothesis....
You don't have a hypothesis. What you have is a manifesto based on
your
illiteracy of the literature:
hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in treed habitat.
Got it now?
Lee Olsen
>
> Let us know how this works out
Badly for you I'm afraid:
Rich Travsky
>
> On Apr 21, 11:58 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C94toea8KqU
> >
> > Thanks, Mario.
> >
> > --Marc
>
> http://tinyurl.com/44kbur
Deer and tigers are aquatic.
Marc Verhaegen
Typical empty talk of people who have nothing to say.
Tigers are *more aquatic* than, eg, lions: camouflage for reedbeds etc.,
larger, broader paws, spend some time in water etc.
Lee Olsen
TREE 2002 Page 213-14:
"... capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."
rmacfarl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_beaver
The Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa) is a primitive rodent *unrelated
to beavers* and not always found in mountainous areas.
Lee Olsen
Yep, just goes to show Wiki is a better source of info than Verhaegen
and his TREE paper.
Marc Verhaegen
beavers & mountain beavers are related:
Mountain beavers eat succulent food. Their enamel microwear resembles that
of Lucy (P-F.Puech). But our ridiculous savanna believers keep think that
Lucy ran after kudus.
No doubt: SFs are stupid stupid stupid:
Op 16-05-2008 07:03, in artikel
87a4e9e0-90eb-4877...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen
>> TREE 2002 Page 213-14:
>> "... capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
>> mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
>> semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
>> grasses and the bark of young trees."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_beaver
> The Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa) is a primitive rodent *unrelated
> to beavers* and not always found in mountainous areas.
So??
My little boy, the're also *unrelated to capibaras*...
:-D
SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
Lee Olsen
> The Savanna Fantasists don't even realise that it's irrelevant whether
> beavers & mountain beavers are related:
> Mountain beavers eat succulent food.
Which means they have nothing at all to do with being semi-aquatic.
They have nothing to do with: "
"Early hominids could have waded bipedally in
swamp forests using the trees for refuge, sleep,
and fruit gathering, whilst also finding part of their
food in shallow water."
Because that is not where mountain beavers are found.
G, pan, and orang find "part of their food in swamp forests using the
trees for refuge, sleep,
and fruit gathering, whilst also finding part of their
food in shallow water."
G, pan, and orang are not Homo and did not live on the savanna.
What you really have is a G, pan, orang aquatic ape theory.
Lee Olsen
> >> TREE 2002 Page 213-14:
> >> "... capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
> >> mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
> >> semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
> >> grasses and the bark of young trees."
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_beaver
> > The Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa) is a primitive rodent *unrelated
> > to beavers* and not always found in mountainous areas.
>
> So??
So sloppy reaseach for a buch of loons who claimed the did
"extensive survey" .....you lied.
>
> My little boy,
Still lusting for little boys, pervert?
> the're also *unrelated to capibaras*...
They are also unrelated to "the earliest hominids" (Verhaegin 2002).
Don't you know the difference between a mountain beaver and a early
hominid?
:-D
> wetloons are stupid stupid stupid.
rmacfarl
> The Savanna Fantasists don't even realise that it's irrelevant
> whether beavers & mountain beavers are related:
> Mountain beavers eat succulent food. Their enamel microwear
> resembles that of Lucy (P-F.Puech). But our ridiculous savanna
> believers keep think that Lucy ran after kudus.
Liar.
What's relevant is that you're an ignorant fool who's made a
fundamental error in what you purport to be a scientific paper, and
then you try to cover up your ignorance by *lying* about other
people's positions...
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
>> The Savanna Fantasists don't even realise that it's irrelevant
>> whether beavers & mountain beavers are related:
>> Mountain beavers eat succulent food. Their enamel microwear
>> resembles that of Lucy (P-F.Puech). But our ridiculous savanna
>> believers keep think that Lucy ran after kudus.
SF:
> Liar.
> What's relevant is that you're an ignorant fool who's made a
> fundamental error
:-D
Lee Olsen
Another content-free post by Verhaegin, fitting for someone who writes
OPINIONS in obscure journals. The peer reviewers were probably put to
sleep
after reading your paper, no wonder they missed the semi-aquatic
beaver error.
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> The Savanna Fantasists don't even realise that it's irrelevant
>>>> whether beavers & mountain beavers are related:
>>>> Mountain beavers eat succulent food. Their enamel microwear
>>>> resembles that of Lucy (P-F.Puech). But our ridiculous savanna
>>>> believers keep think that Lucy ran after kudus.
SF:
>>> Liar.
>>> What's relevant is that you're an ignorant fool who's made a
>>> fundamental error
>> :-D
>> SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
SF:
> Another content-free post by Verhaegin
no, my little little childish boy: whether mountain beavers are semi-aquatic
or only eat succulent food is totally irrelevant to our paper: only pathetic
netloons don't see that
Lee Olsen
> >>>> The Savanna Fantasists don't even realise that it's irrelevant
> >>>> whether beavers & mountain beavers are related:
> >>>> Mountain beavers eat succulent food. Their enamel microwear
> >>>> resembles that of Lucy (P-F.Puech). But our ridiculous savanna
> >>>> believers keep think that Lucy ran after kudus.
> SF:
> >>> Liar.
> >>> What's relevant is that you're an ignorant fool who's made a
> >>> fundamental error
> >> :-D
> >> SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
>
> SF:
>
> > Another content-free post by Verhaegin
>
> no, my little little childish boy:
Says the mentally-ill pervert.
>whether mountain beavers are semi-aquatic
> or only eat succulent food is totally irrelevant to our paper: only pathetic
> netloons don't see that
Whether or not mountain beavers or early hominids were eating
succulent
foods is irrelevant to proving they ate "wetland plants."
You did not prove wetland plants are the only way to get tooth
polish.
Trees and succulent foods grow in other places besides swamps, you
idiot.
That's why totally different species like capybararas and mountain
beavers
can end up with like polish.
C4 teeth in early hominids proves they were eating woodland/savanna
based
succulent foods, not swamp food which is C3.
Rick Wagler
"Marc Verhaegen" <m_ver...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C4544B6C.12263%m_ver...@skynet.be...
research? You actually think this does not put all
the rest in question?
Rick wagler