Re: New 1.8mya Hominid Find In Georgia

On Sep 20, 4:38 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 20-09-2007 22:34, in artikel
1190320458.309442.44...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Sep 20, 11:45 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My little boy, with a little bit of common sense you could have realised
that not everything is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Which applies equally to the unsupported-imagination claims made by
the wet apers.
The savanna hypothesis has collaborating evidence, namely the fact
that when cut-marks occur under tooth marks of carnivores it means
Homo beat the others to the carcass

My little boy, how do cutmarks on bovids butchered in a riverbank
contradict
a waterside past??

Doughboy, cutmarks are found anywhere there is bone preservation, it
has nothing what-so-ever to do with a littoral lifestyle (what ever
that is). Tools are found scattered all over the rift valleys, the
highlands, and inbetween basins. If there was a preference toward a
waterside past, then there should be more tools there at those
locations, there isn't. The fact that there are more bones found near
water is a fact of preservation, bones need to be sealed in water born
sediments to fossilize at all.

Think a *little* bit before producing your blabla.

Hard evidence is blabla in your make-believe world of spiritual
imagination, typical of amateur or professionals writting out of their
fields.


FYI:
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.

Not one iota of evidence to support this view after 70 years of
Hardyism.



AAT:
* Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution (original term E.Morgan 1982)

English lit major.


* Aquarboreal Apes Theory of Mio-Pliocene apes (aqua=water, arbor=tree)

Message-ID: <C26408C2.1D71%m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxx>

Verhaegin says: "Aquatic Ape Theory is an inaccurate term: it's not
about apes,...."


* 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,

Liar, therer is no evidence what-so-ever to support such a thing. This
is spiritual imagination at its worst.


drowned antelopes,

Liar.

stranded whales etc.

One anomaly after a million years on the savanna? You are mentally
ill. The whale is a butchered mammal found on dry land, not a
coconut.

explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes & australopiths) better than
plains- or forest-dwelling:

Says who, the sloppy research clown who claims mountain beavers are
semi-aquatic and got their tooth polish from eating swamp foods?


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...

All excellent descriptions of our savanna ancestors, thanks.



Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma. Homo populations dispersed along
lakes/shores/rivers in savannas & elsewhere, eg, crossed 18 km sea to reach

Only a million years after the fact at Gona on the savanna.

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...

All are recent history compared to Gona and first savanna evidence of
Homo, sorry.



* 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 Tobiashttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
* Symposium 1999. Water & Human Evolutionhttp://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html

Anybody here publish original research in a biology journal? No? Only
"?" and "opinion" and "reviews" of imaginary data.
I thought as much.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... AAT says that some time after the Homo-Pan split 7-4 Ma, our ancestors were ... is reflected in the Plio-Pleistocene dispersals of Homo along the Indian ... And the importance of actual evidence not just ... > with savanna fauna. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Final Solution of the Aquatic Question
    ... No need to divide if someone wants to replace on-the-ground evidence ... reason why Homo was ever anywhere else 4 Ma or before 2.6My. ... you are getting the idea that I am confusing ancestors with fossils I ... because the pattern of evidence after 2.6My is with savanna fauna ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re: Algis ranting about AAH
    ... Another words, he has out-of-date savanna beliefs, but he is up to date ... > Evidence they butchered animals, ... > littoral-lifestyle anywhere in the history of Homo, not now, not ever. ... We don't need good smell. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Homo & molluscs
    ... tell me exactly when it was Homo lost the fur. ... Did you say savanna animals don't have fat? ... Do you have any evidence at all to support the aquatic theory? ... > scenario because ostriches are savanna birds. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Homo & molluscs
    ... >>> No swimming allowed. ... tell me exactly when it was Homo lost the fur. ... Did you say savanna animals don't have fat? ... Do you have any evidence at all to support the aquatic theory? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Quantcast