Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- From: Andrew Nowicki <andrew@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:24:05 +0200
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> You believe that apiths are not our ancestors.
> I believe that they are our ancestors.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Yes, but I have arguments
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html :-)
Your claim that apiths were more like pongids
than like us does not prove anything, even if
it is true. There are only two ways to prove
your point of view:
- prove that we have more in common with the
pongids than with the apiths
- find bones of hominids that were more similar
to us than the apiths and lived at the same
time as the apiths
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors
> were seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs,
> turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae...
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> There is no reason to believe that bipedal hominids were
> better suited for collecting this food than quadrupedal monkeys.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Please try to be relevant. I'm talking about H/P differences.
?? I do not understand what you mean - hominid/pongid?
H/P means Helwett Packard to me.
(Do not use abbreviations unless you define them.)
Pongids can collect this food as well as bipedal hominids.
> AAT s.s., you mean?
Do you mean Schutzstaffel, social security, supersonic,
or sunday school?
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> - stick tools, hard work, secure shelters, digging edible tubers,
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Fairy tales without evidence.
Nobody doubts that it happened, but it is not
clear when it happened.
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> sweating and hairlessness, about 2.9-4.3 Mya
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Sweat & hair fossilise??
No, but there is genetic evidence that hairlessness
is at least 1.2 million years old.
> - firestick hunting, about 2.4-2.9 Mya
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> No good evidence AFAIK.
The only evidence is dry climate in Africa at that time,
presence of Australopithecus africanus in dry habitats,
and presence of carbon-13 in Australopithecus africanus
bones. Carbon-13 probably means that Australopithecus
africanus ate cooked meat - we talked about that already.
This is not strong evidence, but we know that high
temperature (600 degrees Celsius or more) fires were
made in hearths in Africa 1.5 million ago. My definition
of firestick hunting is burning the bush to kill and
injure animals living there. Australian hawks did it,
so early hominids could do it as well.
Paleoanthropologists do not know anything for sure,
so it is important to imagine plausible scenarios
explaining how the hominids lived and evolved.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> I keep posting here our scenario because
> - dry apers keep misrepresenting our view,
> - nobody so far has given sensible objections to our scenario. :-)
You always combine AAT with the claim that
apiths are not our ancestors. AAT seems more
plausible to me than the latter claim.
If Elaine Morgan's AAT leaflet is obsolete,
maybe you should update it. A good HTML leaflet
with illustrations would be more convincing
than your dry list of abbreviations.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- From: spiznet
- Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- References:
- Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- From: Andrew Nowicki
- Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- Prev by Date: Re: Monsoon/mosaic
- Next by Date: load-carrying? (Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Previous by thread: Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- Next by thread: Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
