Re: Homo & molluscs

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1126410509.185813.147290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > > > > Yes, inform a bit. Give a list of furless mammals. Any reason why
> you believe human ancestors were an exception??
>
> > > > Since we are the one and only Homo, yes, we certainly do have a lot of
> exceptions.
>
> > > ?? No, there are no exceptions: what is true for other anmals is also
> true for humans.
>
> > Oh yeah? Did Kanzi get a diploma from Harvard?
>
> Sigh. Too difficult apparently.


Of course it was too difficult for him to get a diploma, that's what I
just said.


Or just trying to be funny?


No, you were.


> I'll try again, in simple words:
> If a rule applies for all animals, what makes you think it does not apply
> for humans?


Good, all animals need oxygen, did early Homo fly like birds?




(Creationists think humans are unique...)
> Simplistic example:
> All furless + fat mammals spend a lot of time in water (no, not the reverse,



You think Hippos have sweat glands, try making just a little bit of
sense.





> my children...), so what makes you believe humans must be an exception?

Chimps can't go to Harvard and get a degree.



> I'm not saying they wer no exception, I'm only asking why you claim they
> were an exeption.
> Understood?

You don't understand why early Homo could live in the desert and
hairless hippos can't.



>
>
> Lee, science is about what can be *repeated*.
> Since you think we are the one & only Homo, you can't say anything sensible
> on the subject.


You are not making any sense at all Marc.



> (Which I knew, of course: so far you haven't said much sensible on our
> past.)

You cannot give on reson why early Homo was perfectly adapted to the
desert and not the oceans.

>
> Just analyse human features.


Yes, just look---savanna adaptation proven.
Desert adaptation proven.
Outrun a horse in desert, but we can't out swim a croc.





> Look in what animals you can find comparable features.
> Then compare these sorts of animals.
> There are no savanna mammals among them.

Yes, just look---savanna adaptation proven.
Desert adaptation proven.
Outrun a horse in desert, but we can't out swim a croc.
Your hypothesis is not science, but imagination. You have no evidence
at all except fantasy analogies.



> There are a lot of semi-aquatics among them.
>
> Not difficult. Even you can do it, Lee...


Yes I can, but you don't seem to be able to.





>
> In 1993, I compared 68 human features to apes (control), to arboreal
> mammals, to plains-dwellers, to semi-aquatics & to full aquatics.
> My conclusions:
> - we once had arboreal ancestors,


OK



> - we never had plains-dwelling ancestors,


The hand axes are in the desert, you can't explain that.


> - we once had semi-aquatic ancestors,


We can out run horses, but we can't out swim a croc.



> - we never had fully aquatic ancestors.


That goes without saying.


>
> "Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence"
> Nutrition & Health 9:165-191, 1993.


Very out-of-date.



>
> "This paper begins by comparing anatomical and physiological features of
> humans and other groups of mammals (apes and arboreal mammals, open-country
> dwellers, fully aquatic mammals, and semi-aquatics), in order to establish
> the nature of the environment where Homo originated. It concludes that the
> evidence completely invalidates the savanna theory and strongly favours the
> semi-aquatic hypothesis. The second part points out that nothing in the
> fossil record disproves this conclusion, and quotes paleo-environmental
> evidence concerning the milieu where the ancient hominids fossilised."
>
> Concl.: "Although the paleo-environmental data alone are not enough to
> invalidate the savanna theory conclusively, in combination with the
> comparative evidence of fossil and extant hominids, they completely
> invalidate this unlucky and far-fetched theory, and strongly suggest that
> the arboreal lifestyle of our primate ancestors was followed by a
> semi-aquatic mode of life in a tropical or subtropical milieu, probably at
> first a mixed arboreal/aquatic lifestyle. Since more than two million years
> and until less than hundred thousand years ago, fossil Homo species seem to
> have frequently dived and waded in lakes, seas and rivers, where they
> partially fed on shellfish."
>
> You can find the paper in the files of http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT


Out of date and obsolete thinking.


>
> --Marc Verhaegen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Homo & molluscs
    ... you believe human ancestors were an exception?? ... true for humans. ... so what makes you believe humans must be an exception? ... Since you think we are the one & only Homo, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: New Ethiopian Find - Oldest Biped At 3.8-4 mya
    ... RETROVIRUS STRUCK ANCESTORS OF CHIMPS AND GORILLAS MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, ... BUT NOT ANCESTRAL HUMANS ... The virus struck after humans had split ... Researchers studying portions of the genome containing 'retroelements,' also ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • human ancestors not in Africa 4-3 Ma?
    ... RETROVIRUS STRUCK ANCESTORS OF CHIMPS AND GORILLAS MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, ... BUT NOT ANCESTRAL HUMANS ... retrovirus, a type of virus that copies its genetic information into ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Article: Retrovirus struck ancestors of chimps and gorillas
    ... but not the ancestors of humans. ... ancestors of apes and old world monkeys were not also ancestors of humans. ... The virus struck after humans had split off the evolutionary ... > Researchers studying portions of the genome containing 'retroelements,' also ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Beyond stones and bones
    ... The fact that the DNA of living chimps and humans ... they are the ancestors of today's chimps. ... means a fossil was a direct ancestor of modern humans," says Wood. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading