Re: Tobias is open to AAT Re: afarensis = fossil Homo species?

On Jun 7, 8:36 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 07-06-2007 05:33, in artikel
1181187222.088342.211...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

Here's the part you snipped (because it embarassed you):

Don't be ridiculous. You're paranoic.

"Prof. Tobias urged to state that the present-day fossil hominid
record consists of hundreds of different well-documented individuals
and that there is general agreement that australopithecines and Homo
have more in common than australopithecines and Pan/Gorilla."

Yes, unfortunately, prof.Tobias, like most PAs, still adheres to this
anthropocentric view. That is not the question. The question is the
facts, not some anthropocentric bias.
But Marc, you've relied on Tobias in the past and quoted him
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/a089fc447a9.
..
?d
mo
de=source
...
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@xxxxxxxxx>
...
See above. And I forgot: "Our ability to concentrate our urine is
poor and
too low and if ever our earliest ancestors were savannah dwellers, we
must
have been the worst, the most profligate urinators there." (Tobias)

Savanna = Homo = core tool makers = sweat.





Yes, yes, that is the guy who forgot that the tools were left on the
savanna by people who pissed there.
My boy, Tobias said that since humans have very dilute urine, its
physiologically impossible that our ancestors ever were savanna dwellers.
Got it? Water & sodium scarce on the savanna?
Impossible on savanna. Gona = 2.6 mya = cores tools (made in the heat)
= ostrich (not penguins) = tortoise (probably desert) = antelope
( don't need water holes) =
Don't talk nonsense. Inform a little bit: Nature 325:305-306, 1987
Origin of hominid bipedalism
Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human bipedalism arose in scavenging
hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating
savanna ungulates but this seems highly improbable.
How old is this non-sense? 1987???

1987 & still stands. ROFL.

Ah, Marc---this is 2007, wind your clock.


There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid
ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores
were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or
long canine teeth and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Core tools on savanna show that is out-of date. You need to attend a
library that has someting newer than 1987.

Canid, felid and hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such a
niche. They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth and did not need
stones for cutting carcasses.

Few Homo teeth at Olorgesailie, but millions of core tools. Early Homo
either out ran them or kicked their butts, take your pick (simple
comparative evidence even for you).


Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of slow - is
inefficient and costly (2,3).
Preuschoft & Witte (1991) argue that the dynamic
response of a body with (taken together) long legs,

1) Long tibiae = Hs. He & Hn had rel.shorter tibiae than Hs, as you should
know, but probably don't.
2) Long legs in bipedal animals are typical for waders (flamingoes), more
than for runners (ostriches). The fastest runners (eg, cheethas) have
rel.short legs, as you know.

Fast doesn't win.
http://tinyurl.com/32ryet

"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups have traditionally practiced "persistence hunting,"
chasing antelopes or other game in the midday heat, often for hours,
until the animals overheat and collapse."


a short but broad trunk and short arms suggests that the
physique of KNM-WT 15000 was finely tuned for efficient
ballistic walking, in other words endurant bipedalism.

:-D
This is ridiculous just-so thinking, based on nothing.
You should know (eg, Hildebrand) that cursorials have *narrow* chests &
pelvises, unlike hominoids incl.Homo.

Donald Mitchell:
"He showed that even the slowest human runners could, with even a
slight head start, outrun lions, cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, and wild
dogs, not by speed, but by out distancing them."
QUARRY CLOSING IN ON THE MISSING LINK by Boaz, Noel T. 1993 (ISBN:
0029045010)

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



Wang & Crompton (2004)
found that the ability to carry large loads is enhanced from
Australopithecus
to Homo erectus and possibly on to Homo sapiens, according to an
earlier proposal
that carrying loads in various contexts was an essential factor in
human evolution.

Make up your mind, my boy: endur.running nonsense?? or carrying ideas??
Endur.runners = dogs.

http://tinyurl.com/32ryet

Do they carry tools IYHO?? carcasses??

Who do you think carried the stone at Olorgesailie? Lions?



PS, back-up data proven here. Tons of rock moved across savanna from
Mt. Olorgesailie to the lowlands.

Does in no way contradict AAT: AAT, contrary to what a few ill-informed
people still think, is not about apes, nor about having been aquatic, nor
about australopiths. Our behavioural, anatomical, physiological & DNA
differences with chimpanzees show that human ancestors some time after the
Homo/Pan split ~5 Ma were waterside dwellers.

More comparative imagination I see. ROFL

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htmhttp://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.htmlhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
If somebody believes that Ologesailie or other archeological or other data
contradict this, I'd like to know his arguments. So far nothing serious has
been forwarded.

Nothing serious has been proposed.


Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely
that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas.
Why do you keep ducking and dodging how the core tools got on the
savanna if Homo didn't live there. This is why your claptrap
imagination rubbish will NEVER be published in a reputable journal.
They do not accept imagination pseudo-science.

1) Tools found in former river beds.

"Former"--- no comprehend English? Like in "empty"
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/dispatch/start.htm

"The really rich handaxe sites at Olorgesailie are associated with
ancient stream channels. Some people have guessed that the flowing
water must have moved and collected the handaxes from far away. In
fact, that's what I originally thought when I started investigating
these sites. But the geologic evidence says otherwise. The crossbeds
show us that the stream was only about knee deep. They were almost
certainly empty of water during the dry season, except for small pools
of water like we see in seasonal streams and rivers in the Rift Valley
today. The old streams at Olorgesailie weren't powerful enough to move
large rocks like handaxes, and the edges of the handaxes themselves
are not rounded, as we'd expect if these rocks had been moved a lot by
water.
The balance of evidence, then, is that the hominins who made these
tools actually brought them to where we find them in the sandy stream
beds. It's interesting... the only channels where we find dense
collections of handaxes are those very close to volcanic ridges that
rise up toward Mt. Olorgesailie and the highlands. My best guess is
that the toolmakers visited the dry-season pools in the stream beds.
Before going back into the highlands, where there's all the rock they
could possibly have needed, the hominins left their stone tools
behind. They could have continued using those handaxes during their
next visits to the stream beds over the following months. But when the
next rainy season arrived, water and sediment would have flowed again
in the channels, covering and burying the handaxes."
-------------------------------------

see, empty.

If you want to call that savanna, go
ahead:

Ostrich, desert tortoise, and antelope. If you want to call that a
swamp, go ahead.


it does not contradict my hypotheses.

Message-ID: <1124565262.379006.215260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jason Eshleman: "You are asking for someone to contradict something
that you've not made a case for. You are asking someone to prove a
negative. This isn't science, though I suspect you don't know what
science is and as such will continue your mentally ill diatribes."

http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
Mario Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."

I think no one believes you.

2) For some obscure reason you seem to believe that those core tools
belonged to your ancestors.

Thank you. Your G. apith hypothesis eliminated everyone else!


3) If they belonged to your ancestors, it still doesn't contradict AAT.

Null hypothesis = Gona = 2.6 mya = ostrich--nuf said.


4) As long as there are blind savanna fanatics like you, it remains possible
that scientific journals reject waterside ideas.

Find some cut-marked coconuts. By the way, do you know of any animal
that can crack open a full sized coconut?


5) Only pseudo-scientists like you believe that Nature & TREE are not
reputable journals.

OK, OK, so TREE can have a bad day. Probably had nothing else to
publish.


6) Luckily, most sensible Pas, unikely pseudo-scientists like you, now
accept a waterside past, eg,

Need a coconut or shell midden first.

Ph.Tobiashttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
Chr.Stringerhttp://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
R.Wrangham 2005 "The Delta Hypothesis: hominoid ecology & hominin origins"
in D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley "Interpreting the past: essays on human,
primate & mammal evolution in honor of David Pilbeam" Brill Ac.Publishers
Boston: 231-242

Got it, my boy?

Tobias doesn't understand about making tools and sweating on the
savanna? They sure didn't make the tools at night when it was cool
and lions were about, must have been made in the daytime when it was
good and hot.

Go back to your swamp, someone will believe you there.

Man is the opposite of a
savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna
mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant
sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need
much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in
water-rich environments.
That's because that is the most likely place for any bone to
fossilize.

As you know (probably not :-D), even Laetoli is now believed to have been
well-wooded instead of savanna:

Bovid postcranial ecomorphological survey of the Laetoli paleoenvironment
Kris Kovarovic & Peter Andrews 2007 JHE in press
Here we report on a bovid postcranial ecomorphological survey of the fossil
assemblages from the Plio-Pleistocene site of Laetoli, Tanzania. A global
sample of extant bovids (n = 205), cervids (n = 14), and tragulids (n = 5)
from seven known habitat types constitutes the comparative data set. All
long bones, carpals, tarsals, and phalanges were measured. Discriminant
function analyses (DFA) were conducted in order to evaluate the ability of
each element to accurately predict habitat affiliation. The baseline of
chance accuracy for DFAs (i.e., the percentage of correct predictions that
can be expected when habitat assignments are randomized) served as the
cut-off point between good and bad habitat predictors. A total of 22
elements yielded percentages of correct classification over the baseline of
accuracy, and these were extended to the Laetoli fossil assemblages.
Summaries of the number of specimens predicted to belong to each habitat
type were used to reconstruct the paleoenvironment. The results indicate
that, at the time of the deposition of the Laetolil Beds, the area had heavy
woodland-bushland cover with some lighter tree and bush cover and grass
available. These results lend strong support to recent suggestions that the
area was on the more wooded end of the habitat spectrum, contra initial
conclusions that it represented a mosaic of more open habitats. The results
also indicate that, during the deposition of the Ndolanya Beds, the
environment had become more open and the grassland component of the
environment had increased significantly. Light woodland-bushland and an
abundance of grass cover dominated the landscape, although tracts of land
with denser vegetation likely existed. This conclusion agrees with earlier
suggestions that the area was a semiarid bushland.

Yes, yes, of course, that is where all the extinct A'piths are found,
I thought you knew that? Go to the savanna where Homo hangs out.


But you stupid clown, stone tools are found in arid conditions where
the fossils are not found.

No insults, but arguments please!

Lions put the tools on the savanna according to you?

It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the
savanna theory (possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many
anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for
bipedalism,
The savanna theory is not about the origins of partial bipedalism.

:-D It's about nothing.

That's an argument??? How did tools get on savanna, did Homo crawl
there?

It is about
endurant bipedalism and the origins of Homo.

Don't be ridiculous:
- Endur.running are onloy a few remote populations of extant H.sapiens. It's
ridiculous to believe that a heavy-boned animal like H.erectus endur.ran.

Cut marks under hyena tooth marks prove Homo got there first = fast.


- Arguably the earliest Homo fossils are found in marine sediments:
Mojokerto, forgot??


Did you forget about bos at Mojokerto??? What else would early Homo
eat?

Who cares what happened
to extinct dead-ends like boisie?

Wantto say something?? If so, so what??
Man, try to be a bit relevant.
And spell "boisei".

Thanks, I spell Boisei dead-end, what else?

while they should know there are much better explanations.
Doughboy, you are still back in 1987, try to get up to date before you
blabber your foolish imagiation here.

My little boy, you are still in 1925: Dart's osteodontokeratic nonsense,
forgot?

2007 Marc, wake up.

.

Loading