Re: Underwater "Savanna" hominids?
- From: "nickname" <alas_my_loves@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jun 2006 09:51:24 -0700
Lee Olsen wrote:
nickname wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
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.
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. 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.
Coconuts? Go to the beach for those.
Why? Have you finally found some evidence that someone was eating them
on the beach (early)?
Why not eat mongongo nuts instead (where there is also early
Pleistocene evidence)?
http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/teach/P380/P380project1C.html
Seasonal mongongo nuts were a fine incentive to journey on inland treks
from coastal regions, as well as obsidian from volcanic sources. I
don't know why you think that they wouldn't migrate with the seasons.
As I said earlier, I agree that they were savanna dwellers, (since you
include savanna tidal beaches), I just think they went out for a swim
on a daily basis to gather delicious and nutritious seafood.
` > 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Lee
Apparently Lee accepts that sand grit is very erosive in the mouth,
(which makes sense since sand is primarily quartz, a very hard angular
substance), but he doesn't think that this same grit would erode
stones, bones and artifacts on a tidal seashore that with every wave
grinds the materials on beaches, and has been doing so for billions of
years.
Now you are talking my language, billions of years may be a slight
exaggeration for the time needed to grind beach rocks to sand, but it
is a whole lot closer to reality than flint points being
Message ID: RVsag.9272$j7.305859@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
" ground (and broken) to dust within a few years (or even months)."
Now that you have found Google's attribution marks, try actually
using them. The issue was the time needed, not IF the process of beach
erosion works or not.
Paraphrasing what you think I said is quite different than what I
actually said. This is why Google went to so much expense, to provide
free access to quotes through the use of attribution marks and message
IDs.
"UFOs, Hollywood, 357 magnum..." please see message 121 for further
insight.
The BURIAL (Hs) evidence above indicates that a healthy population with
worn teeth existed in coastal US.
Ah, no, the point of Lewis and Clark's comments were that these
people were anything but healthy. The Indians formed long lines for
treatment (medicine for food program), and it's a wonder he didn't
kill them all with his quack doctoring.
The lack of fossil evidence of worn
teeth is obviously due to the fact that corpses on beaches NON-BURIAL
decompose quickly, whereas those in dry upland inland sheltered areas
(where there ain't much fish or oysters) are more likely to last. Same
phenomina exists with stranded leopard seal carcasses found inland well
preserved in Antarctica and very few found at the coasts due to
shoreline erosion and rapid decomposition.
Ah, no, see Mungo burials.
Mungo = coastal tidal beaches?
Once again you assume what you are trying to
demonstrate. If the beaches were loaded with stone tools which do not
decompose, then the argument could be made for poor preservation. The
Angola whale bones, sharks teeth, and sea urchin remains were well
preserved on the beach, no reason for Homo bones to decompose while the
others did not.
As for continuity on
savanna, I've no doubt Lee's includes stone tools on beaches as
savanna, coastal lakes as savanna, Rift valley as savanna, IOW anywhere
that isn't actually under water during lowest tides is savanna. So
there really isn't any argument.
This is why evidence is cited (and I did). This is J.D. Clark's view,
not mine. It is correct until you provide counter-published
peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. This is why we have pictures of
lions on the beaches today and savanna animal bones on the raised
Moroccan Pleistocene beaches. If you want to be a critic of Clark's
work, do it with something besides lip-service imaginary rambling.
Most artifacts have been found within
a days walk of the sea or waterways connected to the sea at that time,
but they are claimed to be savanna artifacts.
They are proven to be savanna artifacts and so are many of the animal
bones found on these raised beaches. Do you have any evidence for
aquatic-desert antelopes?
By this classification,
Emperor penguin eggshells found 75 miles from the Antarctic coast
indicate a savanna ostrich-like species, not a diving aquatic species.
Are hand axes found in direct association with penguin bones?
The difference being the million-year gap (or more, depending on some
highly disputed dates) between the highland evidence and the seaside
marine exploitation evidence. A whale butchered on the beach is no
different than an elephant butchered a days walk inland. Both were
exploited on dry land using dry-land tools.
Please see "underwater museaum, stone proves savanna heritage" thread.
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Afar, Herto, Awash, South Africa, Namibia
all coastal regions. DD
And all containing marine-exploitation evidence a million years
after-the-fact.
I don't think many would object to some gaps in the record, granted,
preservation can be fickle. Ten percent of the Pleistocene beaches
remain. If there are many sites after one million years found on them,
then there is no reason to believe there shouldn't be at least one
site left before. Even IF tools from 2.6 mya are found on raised
beaches, it still wouldn't connect them to marine exploitation, much
less proving Homo was spending a great deal of time in the water.
Lee
Daily swim. Fresh seafood. Saltwater. Dry sandy beaches, shallow
mudflats, coral reefs.
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Underwater "Savanna" hominids?
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Underwater "Savanna" hominids?
- References:
- Re: Coastal "Savanna" hominids
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: Coastal "Savanna" hominids
- Prev by Date: Re: Spider Monkeys Make War Too
- Next by Date: Re: Underwater "Savanna" hominids?
- Previous by thread: Re: Coastal "Savanna" hominids
- Next by thread: Re: Underwater "Savanna" hominids?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
