Re: Samburupithecus in swampland amid cranes & plovers




Op 17-06-2007 14:08, in artikel
1182082113.841146.74220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:


Message-ID: <1124565262.379006.215260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jason Eshleman: "You are asking for someone to contradict something
that you've not made a case for.

This man clearly doesn't know what he's talking about:

My boy, the Kanjera evidence doesn't prove your savanna story.

Just look at the facts: it says some hominids (I guess belonging to Homo)
were probably butchering there riverside carcasses in an open landscape. We
don't deny that, remember. We don't deny some adult males of some extant
African populations run after antelopes. For some obscure reason you keep
repeating they do. Fine. Let them. No problem. Not unexpected in our
scenario, which is not about living humans (mostly farmers & fishers, but
also polar poplulations, tropical forest people & even some savanna
dwellers), but about how human ancestors evolved.

Again, for the Xth time: how do you believe the Kanjera data contradict that
Homo populations went inland along the rivers, as we say??

They don't.

Now the non-archeol.evidence. Your story requires that our ancestors went
from the forests to the savannas. This transition is well possible: baboons'
ancestors did it, perhaps even some chimps populations. But in that case,
we get faster animals, leaner animals, less dependent on drinking water,
with more concentrated urine, not furless, not fat, not bipedal, less tool
using, not smarter, but faster, something totally different from what humans
are.

Our scenario, based on comparative data, says our ancestors went from
coastal forests (eg, the E.Afr.littoral forest 5 Ma, see Jon.Kingdon
2003:118) to more open coasts (the African & Indian Ocean shores incl.Java &
Flores) & from there along the rivers inland in Southern Eurasia & Africa.
This scenario is gradual (according to Darwin's theory, unlike your story) &
produces exactly the animal we are. No need for far-fetched exceptions
unseen in other animals as your story requires (sweating to run faster over
the savanna, naked to sweat better, fat to keep warm at night,
perdendicular running at noon to minimise salar radiation & such nonsense).

Our scenario doesn't require such ridiculous exceptions, but exactly follows
what we see in other waterside animals: larger brain, more sweating at the
seaside (=Na+H2O), more naked, more SC fat, external nose, aligned body,
full plantigrady, broad body build, slow diving skills, less climbing
skills, more tool use, more dexterity, worldwide dispersal, dependent on
iodine, dependent on poly-unsaturated fatty acids, dependent on sodium
etc.etc. No tricks, no savanna hocus-pocus. Just from littoral forest to
waterside dispersal. Completely in accordance with all know
archeol.evidence.

Got it??

Now, just inform a bit & think a bit & you'll realise how childish you are &
how ridiculous your savanna stories are:

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

.

Relevant Pages