Re: Eritrean stone tools prove use of marine resources 2 million years too late


Tobias 1995 ³We were all profoundly and unutterably wrong! ? All the
former savannah supporters (including myself) must now swallow our earlier
words ?²
Wood 1996 ³the ?savannah¹ hypothesis of human origins, in which the
cooling begat the savannah and the savannah begat humanity, is now
discredited²
Stringer 1997 ³One of the strong points about the aquatic theory is in
explaining the origin of bipedality. If our ancestors did go into the water,
that would forced them to walk upright ?²
Tobias 1998 ³?Bamford identified fossil vines or lianas of Dichapetalum
in the same Member 4: such vines hang from forest trees and would not be
expected in open savannah. The team at Makapansgat found floral and faunal
evidence that the layers containing Australopithecus reflected forest or
forest margin conditions. From Hadar, in Ethiopia, where ?Lucy¹ was found,
and from Aramis in Ethiopia, where Tim White¹s team found Ardipithecus
ramidus ? well-wooded and even forested conditions were inferred from the
fauna accompanying the hominid fossils. All the fossil evidence adds up to
the small-brained, bipedal hominids of four to 2.5 Ma having lived in a
woodland or forest niche, not savannah.² ³? if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there²
Stringer 2001 ³In the past I have agreed that we lack plausible models
for the origins of bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can
facilitate bipedal locomotion (as observed in other normally quadrupedal
primates). I have never said that this must have been the forcing mechanism
in hominids, but I do consider it plausible. As for coastal colonisation, I
argued in my Nature News & Views last year that this was an event in the
late Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans.²
Wrangham 2005 ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna.² ³? the composition of the Okavango as a network of
islands could favor the evolution of bipedalism. For those who envisage
bipedalism as facilitated by the need to traverse or exploit aquatic
environments, an inland delta that generates low islands termitogenically or
hydrodynamically offers rich scenarios.²
Alemseged 2006 ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside.
I think they basically became biped while they were living in a wooded,
covered environment ?²

___


Op 17-07-2007 15:21, in artikel
1184678484.121067.47540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Jul 17, 3:49 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My little boy, this is what I answered at another post to your nonsense
below:

Some uninformed Savanna Fanatic felt the need to write something here:

Comparative-imagination evidence is nice.

Yes, eg, savanna imaginations: there is no evidence whatsoever (fossil,
archeol. & certainly physiol.) that any hominid species ever lived in
waterpoor conditions as typical savanna dwellers do.

Says the same illiterate imagination that claims mountain beavers are
semi-aquatic (TREE 2002).


The few Homo fossils &
tools that are found in "savanna environments"

"Few" is 100% more than nothing the AATers have for evidence. No
coconuts, no oysters, no algae, no littorial lunacy.

The waterside lunacy has been completely falsified.

Lived waterside where the lions and crocs hang out???? How silly.

"Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned
it while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating
some of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of
our overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to
drown before you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies
swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do
with the real situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the
Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting
maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron M. Smith

"The last place I would camp in Africa is near a water source." Lew
Binford

Lee Olsen: " How close did you camp to lakes?"

*** Kocan: "Not very close."
( PhD marine biology and African big-game hunter)

Hadza camp a twenty minute walk from water sources (O'Connell 2002).

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/dispatch/start.htm
The idea of sleeping on the higher ground rather than next to water
seemed an attractive idea. Lakes, ponds, and stream channels in the
African bush are good natural sources of water and plant food during
the day. But at night they turn into really great places if you want
to be hunted down as prey! The water margins attract the big and small
predators that like to hunt in the dark of night. Even today at
Olorgesailie, we often go to sleep hearing hyenas, jackals, and
sometimes lions growling and whooping off in the distance during their
nighttime prowls. Anyway, early humans could get food in the lowlands
- that's where they left the chipped stone tools and other evidence of
their activities. And, unlike earlier hominins, they could have
avoided the favored hunting areas of other predators if they got to
higher ground at night.


were found there in
riverbeds, alluvial plains, deltas, coasts etc., eg, Gona: riverbank
butchering of bovids (probably drowned during the trek when crossing rivers
at rel.shallow places).

Marc can't cite anything he because he made that up in his comparative
imagination.

Fact:
EE FxJj 10 floodplain. Overbank flood deposit from channel system.
Has hippo bones, plus bones from 10 other animals (Schick
1986:125).


No cut marks.Presevation not good. A channel or bank, natural
redisposition. No evidence to prove it was a butcher site.

Marc imagines mountain beavers being semi-aquatic and he imagins
butchered animals were there aren't any.


One can imagine Homo
ancestors living almost anywhere, bottom of the Indian Ocean,

The usual SF misrepresentations...

What evidence do you have that proves they weren't?

Atlantis,

AFAIK, only SFs are interested in this sort of stuff.

Says the imaginary aquatic-mountain beaver doughboy.


seaside, who can prove you wrong?

Anybody with a little bit of sense, if he had good arguments:

Thanks for proving your own argument wrong.



.

Quantcast