Re: Samburupithecus in swampland amid cranes & plovers




Op 15-06-2007 14:38, in artikel
1181911129.208618.270500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Jun 15, 2:24 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Our comparative data are not imaginary, contrary to you
savanna just-so stories, but based on comparisons with real animals.

Ostrich, bos, land tortoise, cheetah, hyenas, antelope, rhino,
giraffe.
Clark (1992:23):
"Stage III is found in an adjcent quarry--called S.T.I.C.--and is in a
primary context. the artifacts occur with vertebrate fauna in a
limestone layer overlying the regressive Maarifian beach gravel. The
activity area is associated with a freshwater stream that drained onto
the beach nearby. The faunal remains all come from large terrestrial
mammals and there is no indication, at this or any other site in
Morocco, that marine fauna was made use of."

Yes, freshwater stream drained into beach.

Good boy, completely confirms our comparative data:

PAs usu.look only to the fossil & archeological evidence when they
reconstruct human evolution, but fossils are scarse & incomplete, fragmented
pieces of bone without soft parts, frequently of uncertain relation to
living species; often, species, age & sex are unknown; sometimes the
geological age & paleo-environment are uncertain. The fossil record can
provide important insights, but PAs (understandably) tend to overstate its
importance for reconstructing our past. The comparative method ­ comparing
the behaviour, anatomy, physiology, DNA etc. of living animals ­ is much
more secure, systematic & reliable. The main drawback of the comparative
approach is probably the insufficient data available for so many species.
The physiological, anatomical, behavioural & DNA differences between Homo &
Pan show that human ancestors some time after the Homo/Pan split ~5 Ma lived
at the waterside (coast/lake/river). Whether that was before 2.6 Ma (first
finds of stone tools at Gona) &/or after 2.6 Ma &/or at 2.6 Ma
simultaneously but elsewhere (eg, in S.Asia), is of no importance: a
creature that needs a lot of water & salt is physiologically not adapted to
living in hot & dry regions. If some hominids ever lived in savannas as PAs
traditionally believed, it was at the waterside there, not running after
antelopes as some people still seem to think. After 20 years, the
physiological facts remain the same: "Origin of hominid bipedalism" Nature
325:305-306, 1987: "... it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever
lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans
lack sun-reflecting fur, but have thermo-insulative SC fat layers, which are
never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water-& sodium-wasting cooling
system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment. Our
maximal urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal.
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."
As prof.Tobias says: ³if ever our earliest ancestors were savannah dwellers,
we must have been the worst, the most profligate urinators there.² It is
not very sensible to believe that humans (unlike chimps) exposed their naked
skin to the sun & evolved 10 kilo of fat to run after wildebeest. Not
unlikely, hominids at Gona & other "butchery sites" butchered trampled &
drowned bovids crossing a river during the trek. Homo members (as opposed to
Pan) probably improved their dexterity for opening hard-shelled foods at the
waterside (like racoons & sea-otters) & used those skills to butcher bovids
they found drowned at rivers (eg, trekking bovid herds). If the savanna
ideas were true, a lot of primates & esp.Afr.apes should have adapted to the
savanna when forests were replaced by Pleistocene grasslands, & developed
very large brains, extreme dexterity, more nakedness, more dilute urine
etc., not only human ancestors. Why didn't members of Pan or other primates
adapt to live in the savannas & develop better tool using skills, more SC
fat, more plantigrady, more sweating etc.? The savanna ideas can¹t explain
this. Waterside hypotheses otoh nicely explain why after the Homo/Pan split
5 Ma, only members of Homo got larger brains (brain-specific fatty acids
etc. in waterside foods), more SC fat (they hadn't to run fast under the hot
sun after antelopes, but they all, incl.women & children, found their food
while ³playing² in the water (probably savanna theorists spend their
holidays in the savanna?)), started sweating (=water+salt) to cool at the
waterside etc.etc. Savanna stories can't explain all this. And of course,
why wouldn't some of those waterside hominids follow the rivers inland in
Georgia, Flores, Java etc. & perhaps (captatio benevolentiae of savanna
believers :-)) even in savannas?

--Marc Verhaegen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm

.

Relevant Pages