Re: wet apers algae dance (Re: cultural bipedalism




Op 14-09-2007 03:35, in artikel
1189733736.769974.33180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Sep 13, 5:46 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 14-09-2007 02:15, in artikel
1189728955.408569.154...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Sep 13, 1:53 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Some idiot believes that because some people run after kudus all our
ancestors ran after kudus:

Some idiot believes that because some people eat a raw oyster, that
all our ancestors ate raw oysters.

No, no, my little boy, inform a *little* bit:


Message-ID: <1124058632.360214.177290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"You should be more concerned with your inability to come up with an
FOR your scenario.

I don't know who wrote this blabla, but s/he's clearly uninformed: FHI:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Shoreline adaptations in the genus Homo

Description:
Comparative & fossil information on human & ape evolution.
Waterside diaspora of Homo after Homo & Pan split ~5 Ma.

AAT:
* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term E.Morgan 1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water, arbor=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT strict sense)

AAT s.s. is based on comparisons of the behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of
living humans with chimps & other living animals.

Waterside collection of, eg, fruits, coconuts, turtle, bird eggs, shell-,
crayfish, water(side)plants, drowned antelopes, stranded whales etc.
explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes & australopiths) better than
plains- or forest-dwelling: huge brain, slow-diving skills, breath control,
vocality, small mouth & chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness & tool use, late puberty,
long legs, alined body, poor climbing, flat feet, fur loss, fatness, profuse
sweating, high needs of water, sodium, iodine & poly-unsat.fatty acids...

Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Homo populations dispersed along
lakes/shores/rivers in savannas & elsewhere, eg, crossed 18 km sea to reach
Flores 0.8 Ma.
Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are found near Rift valley lakes & even (sea
level fluctuations hindered fossilisation) Indian Ocean & African coasts:
Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea...

* Max Westenhöfer 1942. Der Eigenweg des Menschen. Mannstaede
* Alister Hardy 1960. Was Man more aquatic in the past? NS 7:624
* Maggie Roede...1991. The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? Souvenir
* Elaine Morgan 1997. The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Souvenir London
* Marc Verhaegen...2002. Aquarboreal ancestors? TREE 17:212
* Stephen Cunnane 2005. Survival of the Fattest. World Scientific
* Phillip Tobias http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
* Symposium 1999. Water & Human Evolution
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html

__________


Lee did a fine job of showing that your claim that
there aren't arguments against your scenario is simply your own
delusional ramblings with no ties to the reality the rest of us live
in. He provided arguments, sound arguments against your dealings. If
you don't believe it, this is inevitably only your problem. You should
also be more concerned with the fact that you're a sociopathic prick
who doesn't seem to have the basic descency to realize that calling
out individuals in subject lines is the mark of a true *** but for
quite some time I've realized that being an *** is your hobby and
AAX is merely your vehicle."





http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

AAT - shoreline adaptations of the genus Homo

Description:

Comparative & fossil information on ape & human evolution.
Waterside diaspora after the Homo/Pan split 5 Ma.

AAT:
* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term E.Morgan 1982)
* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water, arbor=tree)
* Amphibious Ancestors Theory of Plio-Pleistocene Homo (AAT strict sense)

AAT s.s. is based on comparisons of the behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of
living humans with chimps & other animals.

Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture
by
Cameron M. Smith
PhD, Department of Archaeology
If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of
time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the following
points.
1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and, despite
what was presented at this lecture, it has been found to be severely
wanting. AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is
known as a post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does
not really have a coherent body of theory, only a few disassociated
(non)explanations for a few biological characteristics of the genus
Homo. People should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable
alternative' as claimed at the lecture.
2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory device. It
is poorly regarded because it has been examined and found to be
invalid. It is not poorly regarded because of some scientific cover-up
or paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot
accept change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it
has been pointed out that science is the worst place to try to hide
anything because fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is
simply a theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
anthropologists.
3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to Simon Fraser
University, and the sponsoring hosts. How this pop/crypto/science
'theory' was given equal billing with real research efforts is beyond
me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of lectures
dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute of Humanities' 'Old
Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A Darwinian Perspective on Our Past,
Present and Future' lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when
examined for internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor Erich von
Daniken to speak about spaceship depictions in Maya tombs.
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.
There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit. Please keep in
mind, the 'savanna hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but
that does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated because
of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's opinion, and everyone is
entitled to an opinion'. Opinion is not the same thing as scientific
theory.
The damage of this lecture was to those who came to the lecture
expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was a viable body of
theory. It is not, and it does not deserve that label.
Cheers,
Cameron M. Smith




Waterside collection of, eg, fruits, coconuts, turtle, bird eggs, shell-,
crayfish, waterplants, drowned antelopes,

All too late and out of date.

Try to be honest, here is hard evidence, something you will never
have.
Gona = 2.6 mya = core tools = cut-marked antelope bones = meat eating
= smart brains = ostrich eggs = land tortoise = savanna = NULL
hypothesis until someone proves different. Imaginary scenarios that
make up evidence, such as utilization of algae that doesn't exist, is
pseudo-science.

explains unique
Homo traits

You ever hear of comparative evidence?
"Specifically, longer, more linear bodies are better adapted for heat
loss in dry open environments, where evaporative heat loss from
sweating is very effective. All modern-day tall "elongated" African
(e.g., Nilotics) are restricted to such environments."
Alan Walker and Richard Leakey editors. 1993 The Nariokotome Homo
Erectus Skeleton. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

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

<Snip rest of spiritual phenomenon rubbish>





.

Loading