Re: Tobias: our earliest ancestors were savannah dwellers, (Re: Algis ranting about AAH

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127599813.330432.144730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> This is what AAT says:
>
> Why did you snip this:

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
http://www.sfu.ca/~csmith/aat.html



>
> AAT = shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo
> AAT s.s. is based on the behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans
> vs. chimps & other animals. Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts,
> fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae etc. explains unique
> Homo traits (not seen in apes or australopiths) better than plains- or
> forest-dwelling : brain size, diving skills, breath control, vocality, small
> mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway, projecting
> nose, poor sense of smell, handiness, tool use, late puberty, long legs,
> aligned body, poor climbing, fur loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium,
> iodine & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.
> Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along
> coasts & rivers, in savannas & elsewhere: in spite of sea level fluctuations
> (difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are found near Rift
> valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts : Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta,
> Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea etc. (18 km sea crossing to reach Flores
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> > Saying is not evidence of anything.
>
> Can't you read the evidence??


So far, you haven't presented any evidence, your saying something is
not evidence.



Do you really believe we got diving skills on
> the savanna?? My boy, use your brain a little bit.


We have diving skills that are so poor, any large croc can catch us and
eat us at will. Yet we can easily outrun the fastest savanna animals.


>
> > Early Homo first on the savanna,
>
> No problem if they were next to water there.


Giant problem if water deep enough to have crocs in it.




Already read MH Trauth cs.2005
> "Late Cenozoic Moisture History of East Africa" Science 309:2051?

Try to be a little relevant please. Cenozoic is not the early
Pleistocene. This is about Homo, remember?

> Try to be a bit relevant, my hair-splitter: the point is:


This point is you do not have any evidence to back up your claims.



the savanna theory
> with its ridiculous "explanations" (naked to sweat better, SC fat against
> cool savanna nights, sweating to cool in water-& Na-poor regions etc.) is
> nonsense.

Too bad for you. Early Homo first on the savanna.

>
> > first with tools, and first with cut-marked savanna animal bones. Don't
> you wish you had conclusive evidence like that?
>
> My boy, why don't savanna chimps leave cutmarks??

Do you think you are a chimp? This is about Homo, not chimps. Why do
you contradict yourself?


Why don't hunting chimps
> use stone tools??

Ever thought of that?? Of course not.

They have fangs, Homo does not. Do you understand that at all, of
course you don't.



> IOW, the cutmarks themselves are proof that humans had a very special
> evolution, unlike all other primates. Guess why? :-D


I don't have to guess, you do. Early Homo first on the savanna.




> Why are you convince a waterside relative of ours should not have used bones
> to butcher carcasses if they found one??


What is your evidence?



>
> > Why don't you rename your scenario the Aquatic Lucy Theory?
>
> ??
> Are you serious??
> Lucy has nothing to do with AAT.

Lucy is a better fit. Early Homo first on the savanna, remember?



> AAT is about Homo, forgot?

Early Homo first on the savanna, remember? Lucy thus becomes a better
fit. Or was Lucy a savanna runner like the Turkana Boy?


"Two independent lines of research converged on the conclusion that
early Homo was an efficient runner, the first human species to be so
Leakey (1994:55)."

http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo
"In fact, he walked and ran with better mechanics than we do today. The
mechanics of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are superior
to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that efficiency of
walking and running to give birth to children with larger brains."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What were the habitats of early hominids?
    ... Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture ... what famous serious PAs today have to say on the savanna fantasies: ... in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. ... AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What were the habitats of early hominids?
    ... Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture ... AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; ... hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, ... savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Marc was right
    ... AAT is a fairytale closely related to the occult. ... Doughboy, No algae, no oysters, no coconuts, and no C4 savanna isotope ... signature in early Homo teeth prove beyond any doubt that early Homo ... You really think that apiths make a good ancestor for Pan or Gorilla? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What were the habitats of early hominids?
    ... Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture ... AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; ... Origin of hominid bipedalism ... savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: H.floresiensis = dwarfed island form of H.erectus
    ... Now the poor man confuses Homo & hominids... ... AAT: Shore Adaptations in the genus Homo ... -Comparative & Fossil information on ape & human evolution ... -late puberty & long life span (oppostie of savanna mammals), ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading