Re: Homo & molluscs
- From: Rich Travsky <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:21:23 -0600
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> You keep missing the point:
> - AAT (shoreline adaptations sometime after the H/P split) is based on
> comparative data, eg, it's ridiculous to believe that olfactory reduction is
> for running over some plain, same for tens of other human features (AFAIK
> the *only* human feature that is often seen in cursorial mammals is long
> legs, but this is also often seen in wading birds).
> - So far, you completely fail to explain how archeol.data falsify this. What
> I see is a fast dispersal of Homo to Java & Algeria. Give 1 reason why not
> along the coasts.
> Sorry, Lee, no time for empty "discussions".
Coward. He refuted you point by point. He made time for you...
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1125285360.011026.45020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1124997524.511685.102370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > >> R Zhu et al 2004 "New evidence on the earliest human presence at high
> > northern latitudes in northeast Asia" Nature 431: 559-562
> >
> > > Marc, you are simply to kind,
> >
> > I know. :-)
> >
> > > thank you for calling my attention to the Nature article, I had
> forgotten
> > all about it. I will be adding that article to my growing list of
> > savanna-adapted hominid evidence (what a keeper!). Notice this quote in
> the
> > article above: "The lowest layer, about 1.66 Myr, provides the oldest
> record
> > of stone-tool processing of animal tissues in east Asia." Your post did
> not
> > mention any processing evidence of leaves, aquatic plants, nor is there
> any
> > in the body of the paper. But what the original article does mention, that
> > your abstract does not, are the type of fauna found with the tools. Want
> to
> > guess which fauna?:-) You got it, hyenas, rhinoceros, ostrich, etc., all
> > the same animals one typically finds out on the hot, sweaty, sun-baked
> > savannas in Africa.
> >
> > So? Any reason why you think these animals could not have lived next to
>
> Next to??? Define next; how long is a string? None of those animals
> live next to a lakeshore and marsh environment.
>
> > "The sediments, numerous molluscan shells (Gyraulus chihliensis and
> > Planorbis youngi), and leaves and fruits of aquatic plants (for example
> > Trapa sp.) in MJG-III indicate a low-energy lakeshore or marsh environment
> > rich in organic materials."?
>
> And what is your point? Not all places that have potable water for
> animals and Homo do not always have the molluscan/plants you mentioned,
> what did they do then, starve?
>
> >
> > > "Shallow water" the Nature report says. Yes, modern Hadza set up their
> > hunting blinds near shallow water, but NEVER where they live. Their base
> > camps are found 1-2 km away (O'Connell et all. 2002:850).
> >
> > Fine. And? Your point?
>
> Hazda don't live near water for a very good reason, it's dangerous, and
> they do not want to scare away any game that would possibly make a
> meal. Time getting water is kept to a minimum.
>
> We all know how modern Hadza live,
>
> Yes, they live well away from any water source because they know that
> near a water source is the worst possible place to live.
>
> but we're talking
> > here about our ancestors 1, 2, 3... Ma. Anything in the Hazda's lifestyle
> > that contradicts our scenario?
>
> Anything in the Hazda's lifestyle that contradicts the savanna
> scenario? [a little negative argument for you also]
>
> >
> > > "At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along the former stream
> > channels away from the playa lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976.
> >
> > OK: that's where the stones are, no? So? Your point?
>
> Away from the lakes is the point. No diving required.
>
> >
> > > "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied grasslands and open
> scrub-
> > and wood-lands, as in East Africa. Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa
> > after 1.7 Ma is associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> grasslands;
> > its post-cranial anatomy, with its long limbs was geared to long-distance
> > walking across open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> posture."
> > Dennell 2003
> >
> > Yes, we know many PAs used to associate
>
> With all due respect Marc, you are not a PA; you are not qualified to
> speak for "many" PAs. Many??? This is another wooden-man argument. Many
> Mds in the Netherlands believe in little green men from outer space.
> Prove me wrong, since you like the negative argument approach so well.
>
> He with such environments (Wheeler's
> > ridiculous midday foraging ideas),
>
> Lip-service-flame job, not worth a reply.
>
> but most PAs know better now
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm .
>
> Exactly who are you putting words into the mouths of now? Did the
> people who think that mountain beavers are semi-aquatic determine this
> revelation?
>
> >
> > > This paper once again demonstrates the overwhelming trend for
> savanna-bone
> > processing by hominids, and once again zero evidence for marsh-plant
> > exploitation. I need to coin a new term here, hmm,
> > 'littoral-big-game-hunting'? No matter where you go, the evidence for
> > savanna-bone processing always precedes shell/aquatic plant processing
> > evidence, be it swamps or sea-side.
> >
> > Please, don't confuse the facts with your prejudices: the paper shows
> early
> > Homo in China next to hyena, rhino, ostrich, shellfish, aquatic plants.
>
> Mosquitoes live there also, do you think Homo was eating the
> mosquitoes?
>
> The
> > paper also give good reasons to believe these early Homo used stones to
> > butcher animal tissues.
>
> Yes, that is the factual savanna evidence.
>
> Ever thought why our nearest relatives chimps (who
> > hunt a lot), even savanna chimps, don't do this? Ever crossed your mind
> that
> > our ancestors might have acquired these skills at the seashores?
>
> Don't confuse your prejudices with the facts. This is about Homo, you
> do remember saying that? Want me to look it up? Adding more scenarios
> and dreaming about what chimps were doing 2 Mya is nothing more than a
> smoke screen to cover the fact that Homo was a savanna adapted
> creature, no imagination required.
>
> >
> > IOW, you fail to give 1 argument against AAT:
>
> IOW, you fail to give 1 argument against the savanna scenario
>
> that our anestors were
> > littoral once,
>
> No, there is zero evidence that Homo was ever littoral.
>
> because this explains our nakedness,
>
> Like you speak for all biologists. See Langdon for better scenario.
>
> SC fat,
>
> No, you need to read Landon's new book, he gives a much better scenario
> for this.
>
> olfactory
> > reduction,
>
> Explained nicely by the small-hunting hypothesis.
>
> masticatory reduction,
>
> This reduction is still going on today. It is not a function of a
> littoral lifestyle today, so there is no reason to believe it ever was.
>
> large brain,
>
> An impedance to diving.
>
> tool use
>
> Too bad it has been conclusively proven that some of those tools are a
> function of butchering savanna animals and none have ever been proven
> to be a function of shell or Trapa processing, and if you say you don't
> need tools to process shells/Trapa, then you contradict your own
> argument about aquatics governing tool development. You are letting
> your prejudices get in the way of the hard facts etc etc.
>
> etc.etc; many times
> > better than savanna-running ideas.
>
> IYO, not Leakey's, not Langdon's, nor Boaz.
>
> > _________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "The timing of early human dispersal to Asia is a central issue in the
> > study
> > > of human evolution. Excavations in predominantly lacustrine sediments at
> > > Majuangou, Nihewan basin, north China, uncovered four layers of
> > indisputable
> > > hominin stone tools. Here we report magnetostratigraphic results that
> > > constrain the age of the four artefact layers to an interval of nearly
> > > 340,000 yr between the Olduvai subchron and the Cobb Mountain event. The
> > > lowest layer, about 1.66 Myr, provides the oldest record of stone-tool
> > > processing of animal tissues in east Asia. The highest layer, at about
> > 1.32
> > > Myr, correlates with the stone tool layer at Xiaochangliang, previously
> > > considered the oldest archaeological site in this region. The findings
> at
> > > Majuangou indicate that the oldest known human presence in northeast
> Asia
> > at
> > > 40° N is only slightly younger than that in western Asia. This result
> > > implies that a long yet rapid migration from Africa, possibly initiated
> > > during a phase of warm climate, enabled early human populations to
> inhabit
> > > northern latitudes of east Asia over a prolonged period."
> > >
> > > This quote appears within the text: "The sediments, numerous molluscan
> > > shells (Gyraulus chihliensis and Planorbis youngi), and leaves and
> fruits
> > of
> > > aquatic plants (for example Trapa sp.) in MJG-III indicate a low-energy
> > > lakeshore or marsh environment rich in organic materials."
> > >
> > > (thanks, Stephen)
> > >
> > > Trapa: shallow water, edible seeds.
> > >
> > > --Marc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Homo & molluscs
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Homo & molluscs
- Prev by Date: Re: skinny runners
- Next by Date: Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
- Previous by thread: Re: Homo & molluscs
- Next by thread: Re: Homo & molluscs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
