Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Ocean

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Spiznet,
> I'm talking about ancestors.
> Last Common Ancestors of chimps & humans = Homo-Pan LCA.
> H & P split ~5 Ma or so. After H & P split, we have Homo OT1H, & Pan OTOH.
> Fossils have nothing to do with this. Only living animals (incl.their DNA).
> Still following?
> :-)
> Now, I'm interested in why humans & chimps differ. What made them & us
> different? IOW, what happened after the H/P split in the H branch & what in
> the P branch, eg, why do humans have such a poor olfaction? why masticatory
> reduction (MYH16)? why very long legs? etc.etc. This is what AAT (or AAT
> s.s.) is about: it's obvious except to imbeciles that a waterside past
> explains human typical features much better than running over the savanna,
> eg, one must be a real fool if one believed that olfactory reduction would
> be benificial for going to the savanna. A waterside past would also easily
> explain why Homo dispersed to Java & Flors whereas other hominids (chimps,
> gorillas, apiths) didn't even leave Africa.
> Still following?
> Now, we propose that some time after Homo & Pan split, our ancestors were
> seaside omnivores who collected coconuts, fruits, bird eggs, turtles,
> shell-, crayfish, algae... This explains many typically Homo traits (not
> seen in apes or apiths) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: brain
> size, diving skills, breathing control, vocality, small mouth & chewing
> muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting nose, reduced sense
> of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs, body alignment,
> reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high needs of water, sodium, iodine &
> poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
> Any objections to this?

Well, obviously to the person who is looking for FACTS and EVIDENCE you
have absolutely NOTHING to recommend your views except for what you
believe is common sense.

Unfortunately, science does not work this way as you have found out,
without ANY fossils, tools, artifacts, etc, you are basically making up
a fairy story to all those who don't know any better.

I am suprised because I knew you didn't consider a'pith as ancestors,
but I at least thoguht that you considered SOMETHING evolutionarily to
be a precursor, so there should be an (as yet undiscovered) pre-Homo
group...

Instead, you are saying that as soon as the LCA split, Homo was
created/spawned and has as good as Homo ever since. (With no evidence
except the "story").

This is not right, you might as well put your 2 paragraphs together,
since you have no specific evidence in the difference between Homo at
7mya all the way down to Homo at 2.5mya.

> Marc Verhaegen
> http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1
> AAT = Homo littoral diaspora
> _________
>
> "spiznet" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1124239913.329263.102690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > "spiznet" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1124192947.195115.263760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Again:
> > > > > AAT is about *Homo*, ie, Homo after the H/P split.
> > > > > AAT is *not* about apiths.
> > > > > AAT is *not* about apes.
> > > > > Repeat: AAT is about Homo.
> > > > > Okidoki?
> > > > > Finally understood?
> > > > > About Homo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again: this is AAT:
> > > > >
> > > > TAKE THIS OUT, there is no HOMO for 1.5 my yet, imaginary get it:
> > > AAT=Homo:
> > >
> > > After Pan & Homo split, we had Homo & we had Pan. Okidoki?
> >
> > This is quite strange, and I have never heard anything like this theory
> > before. I thought I had heard everything, and have read your macro 1000
> > times.
> >
> > Homo exists from 7mya - 2.5mya without any fossils, and you rest your
> > entire case on this belief. Why don't you include this in your macro,
> > clearer???
> >
> > > AAT is *not* about fossils.
> > > AAT is about human ancestors after the H/P split.
> > >
> > > > > 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... The theory (based on the behavior,
> anatomy &
> > > > > physiology of living humans compared to other animals) explains many
> > > > > typically Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) a lot
> better
> > > than
> > > > > dry savanna scenarios do: brain size, diving skills, breathing
> control,
> > > > > vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer
> > > airway,
> > > > > projecting nose, reduced sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late
> > > puberty,
> > > > > long legs, body alignment, reduced climbing, fatness, fur loss, high
> > > needs
> > > > > of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids...
> > >
> > > > START HERE IF YOU WANT ANY CREDIBILITY:
> > >
> > > Don't be ridiculous: you omit the essential part.
> > >
> > > > > In the fossil & archeological record, this waterside
> > > episode
> > > > > is reflected in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the
> Indian
> > > > > Ocean & African coasts: 1.8-Ma Homo remains come from Algeria, Iran,
> > > Kenya,
> > > > > Georgia, Java... always near lakes or seas (R.Dennell 2003 JHE
> 45:421);
> > > in
> > > > > spite of sea level changes (Ice Ages), Homo much more than
> australopith
> > > > > remains have been found amid shells, corals & barnacles, from 1.8 to
> 0.1
> > > Ma
> > > > > (throughout the Pleistocene), in coasts all over the Old World
> > > (Mojokerto,
> > > > > Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea...), even on islands that could only
> be
> > > > > reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma
> > > > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm).
> > > > > Marc Verhaegen
> > >
> > > > First, it is obvious your AAT is not just about Homo.
> > >
> > > Don't be ridiculous: AAT is about Homo.
> >
> > Your AAT is about 7mya Homo, which doesn't even exist in anyone's
> > imagination except yours. Anyone listening to you is nuts!
> >
> > > > Second, who are you, a Yahoo list owner, to decide what is and isn't
> AAT.
> > >
> > > Don't be ridiculous: AAT = the theory that says that the differences
> > > between H & P show that our ancestors were more aquatic in the past.
> >
> > According to you: Homo = all human ancestors since the LCA Pan/Homo.
> > You are obviously writing your macro without clearly informing people
> > of your beliefs. After that, give it up. Algis, your hero.
> >
> > -Mark
> >

.

Relevant Pages