Savanna nonsense
- From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:22:35 +0100
The savanna theory is based upon exceptions.
1 exception = ok,
2 exceptions = not impossible,
3 exceptions = nonsense.
We are the only abundantly sweating "savanna runner", the only with naked
skin, the only with a lot of fat under the skin, the only with an upright
spine, the only whose max.speed is some 30 km/hr, the only with extreme
dexterity, the only with huge brains, etc.etc.
My problem is: how can people who claim they're smart (the savanna fanatics
/ the creationists / ...) produce such nonsense (savanna running / divine
creation / ...) ??
Note all the above features are seen in diverse combinations in waterside
animals.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
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 ³Bamford 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
Groves & Cameron 2004 ³Nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis.
Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best
explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory,
and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our
ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore.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
Thorpe et al. 2007 ³? early hominins occupied woodland environments, not
open or even bush-savannah environments (such as sites including Allia Bay,
Aramis, Assa Issie and now Laetoli) ... they retained long grasping
forelimbs, which are more obviously relevant in an arboreal context?²
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Wet ape nonsense was (Re: Savanna nonsense)
- From: Lee Olsen
- Wet ape nonsense was (Re: Savanna nonsense)
- Prev by Date: Re: Diving Dog
- Next by Date: Re: Lucy = fossil Gorilla species?
- Previous by thread: Re: Smiling Smilodon
- Next by thread: Wet ape nonsense was (Re: Savanna nonsense)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
