Re: Savanna hominids
- From: vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (pete)
- Date: 31 May 2006 21:31:26 GMT
on 30 May 2006 21:30:49 -0700, Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
` pete wrote:
` > on 29 May 2006 11:04:17 -0700, Lee Olsen <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> sez:
` >
` > ` Day Brown wrote:
` > ` >
` > ` > The polyunsaturated fats of sea life, the Omega 3, Omega 6, DHA, and the
` > ` > minerals from Kelp would have dramatically improved the diet from the
` > ` > standpoint of mental development.
` >
` > ` If that were the case, starfish (as they also eat a brain-improving
` > ` shellfish diet) should be smarter than chimps.
` >
` > Cute but silly comment. Despite your biases,
` Biases? You made the accusation, why don't you spell out just exactly
` what you think those biases might be. And don't forget to include the
` volume number where I can find your counter evidence.
You can reread that plainly hostile, stupid and baiting remark, and
say that it does not reveal any bias? You appear to have lost all
perspective. Perhaps you should take a rest for a few days, and
come back to posting when you've rediscovered your centre.
` and independent of whether
` > hominins spent their time on the beaches, more omega 3 oils in the
` > diet dramatically improve the quality of neural development in
` > young humans. If you want smart children, you will make use of this
` > information.
` Obviously from the content of your reply you certainly didn't get
` enough omega 3 as a child.
Ah, now we leap immediately to ad hominem. This is quite sad,
really. You're the only one in this exchange who sounds
developmentally impaired. Lots of noise, no consideration for the
facts at hand, too busy concentrating on your emotional attack on
the position you don't like, and topped off with willful ignorance.
` You fight fire with fire. Assuming kelp was
` leading the evidence by Brown, and chimps were getting enough of what
` ever it takes to get smarter than a starfish with out eating a seafood
` diet. If that isn't clear enough for you, go eat some nuts.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did kelp come from?
Nevermind.
How about you just stick to respecting logic and facts. You might
easily have the more defensible position, if you bother to argue
it using only valid points, rather than the rhetorical nonsense
you've put out recently.
` >
` >
` > ` >
` > ` > Were the hominids the meat eaters that has been assumed, we'd have teeth
` > ` > much more like Baboons, with really sharp canines. But as it is, we have
` > ` > flatter teeth with thicker dentine that would be able to withstand the
` > ` > grit from sand and bits of seashell.
` >
` >
` > ` Sorry, but that idea was proven false 200 years ago and since then with
` > ` later studies.
` >
` > ` http://www.kavbooks.com/si/23274.html
` > ` Page 423: "Among the Sokulks too, and indeed among all tribes whose
` > ` chief subsistence is fish, we have observed that bad teeth are very
` > ` general: some have the teeth, particularly the upper jaw, worn down to
` > ` the gums, and many of both sexes, and even in middle age, have lost
` > ` them almost entirely."
` >
` > ` Green (1998:447) interprets Buhl Woman's tooth wear.
` > ` Wear on Smith's scale varied from 7 on 1st molars (8 being maximum
` > ` wear possible), 6 on incisors, canines, and premolars. Third molars
` > ` stage 3. Green: "This pattern is commonly observed in dentitions
` > ` processing diets containing large amounts of gritty substances (Osborn
` > ` 1982)."
` >
` > ` http://www.fortrossstatepark.org/chapelman.htm
` > ` "The tooth wear on the burial is indicative of a typical Native
` > ` California diet. Extreme wear is present on all teeth, resembling that
` > ` found in skeletal populations throughout California. The tooth wear is
` > ` certainly an indicator of diet, rather than pathological complications
` > ` or poor preservation. The wear is uniform on all teeth, and is limited
` > ` to the occlusal, or biting surface of the teeth. The preservation of
` > ` the rest of the skeleton is fairly good, and bone density is moderate,
` > ` indicating that the teeth were worn down by eating a grit-laden diet.
` > ` Had the wear been related to poor preservation, this would be seen
` > ` throughout the skeleton, and many elements would be missing."
` >
` >
` > Again, independent of the validity of any notion of hominins living
` > on the beach, your argument makes no sense. In fact, what you have
` > done is demonstrate the opposite of your position - why the evolution
` > of tougher teeth (humans have much thicker, toougher teeth than other
` > hominins) could be explained by the requirements of a seashore
` > habitat.
` "COULD BE EXPLAINED"???? "Could it be?" says von Daniken.
` Great, another UFOer has joined the thread.
Lost in your emotions, still, I see. You seem to think your position
is so righteous that not only are you justified in using flawed
reasoning in its defense, but that anyone pointing out the obvious
flaws is automatically a damnable heretic. You make a sorry display.
Now let's hear you defend yourself by wrapping your nonsense in the
righteous flag of virtuous science. I'm not impressed. Please try
harder, you wouldn't convince a neutral unlearned observer with
your sloppy reasoning. You can do better than this.
` Too bad you have ZERO evidence to back up your imaginary claim.
` I'll be waiting for you to produce something besides the lip service
` I have been getting recently from the other contributors to this
` thread.
` >
` > ` Lewis and Clark saw no unusual amount of wear on the teeth of primaily
` > ` meat eating plains Indians.
` >
` > Hence, there can be assumed to have been no evolutionary pressure
` > in that habitat to develop thicker teeth.
` Hence, if modern people with thick enamel (irrespective of how they got
` that way) have teeth destroyed that quickly, then sand wins no matter
` how thick the enamel is.
` Sand had nothing to do with developing thick enamel as Brown and you
` have claimed
Ah, add reading comprehension issues to the list. I haven't claimed
anything. I have merely pointed out the problems with your argument.
Let me help you out, then: "independent of the validity of any notion
of hominins living on the beach ". I meant exactly what I said.
Come on. More light, less heat. Think a bit more before you post.
You don't win a debate by the quantity of bad arguments mustered,
but by the quality of a few good ones.
or else by now we would be immune to such a condition. My
` citations prove that is not the case. Early fossil tooth wear
` demonstrates a condition closer to the meat eating plains Indians than
` they do a gritty beach diet. The only unusual early hominid tooth wear
` I can think of is some of the Neandertals have angled wear thought to
` have been caused by pulling something through their teeth, but
` certainly not by grit in their food.
` The difference between the evidence I have cited and your imagination
` is there is no shortage of broken and cut-marked bones early. There is
` no evidence for anything else.
Yet hominins have thicker enamel than any other ape. Living on the
savannah wouldn't lead to that.
` You can always tell a loon by the ASSumptions they make about others
` without knowing a thing about them.
` "If you want smart children, you will make use of this
` information."
` You can tell a loon, but you can't tell him much.
So it appears. But I might keep trying, if I don't get too bored and
disappointed. Sorry to have made the rash assumption that you might
like to have smart children, I don't know what I must have been
thinking. Stupid kids are wonderful ...I guess...
` A good argument against
` a long savannah history.
` There is two and a half million years of archaeological continuity on
` the savanna. A good argument for a long savanna history. As Sue likes
` to say, don't give up your day job.
By the time hominin remains are found on the savannah, the thick
enamel is already in place, as is the (relatively) large brain
size. We find remains on the savannah mostly because the rift
valley exposes sediments there from the right period. We have no
evidence one way or the other to demonstrate whether that was
the _preferred_ habitat of hominins, or whether that was just a
marginal spillover from another habitat. You have an awfully
powerful emotional attachment to this savannah niche position,
based on such little evidence. Even the mainstream of paleoanth
has moved away from the "savannah theory" and recognized how
little we know of the range of hominins - hominids, for that
matter - throughout the pliocene. You are aware of the exact
number of remains of ancestors on the chimp line currently
available, yes? Now, do you suppose there might have been
hominins perhaps living in those regions, of whose remains we
currently possess an equal quantity.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Savanna hominids
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Savanna hominids
- Next by Date: Re: Savanna hominids
- Next by thread: Re: Savanna hominids
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
