Re: Hs living in caves three miles from the sea (Re:Hslittoral164 ka


Doughboy sputtered:

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

A'pith data, wrong savanna hypothesis.

Ostriches are no longer savanna birds according to this out-of-date
rubbish?


Message-ID: <430278c8$0$18483$ba620e4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MV: "AAT is about what made Homo special & different from Pan, it's
not about apiths!
AAT is not about apes, but about humans: what makes us different from
chimps."

FYI, Homo = savanna

Gona:
"ostrich-egg shell fragments are more closely associated with the
lithic artigacts"
H. Roche et al. Nature Vol 399:59

Dmanisi:
"Researchers also have found
a wealth of animal remains from the same period, including elephants,
gazelles, rhinos, sabre-toothed cats, giraffes, bears, ostriches,
wolves and
rodents."
Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili


China:
Xing Gao et al.
New Light on the Earliest Hominid Occupation in East Asia1
Xing Gao; Qi Wei; Chen Shen; Susan Keates
Current Anthropology; Dec 2005; 46

S18: "Preliminary identification of the bones and teeth, most of which
are in
a fragmentary state, point to birds, including ostrich...."

Sahara Desert:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/africa/bir_sahara.bir_tarwafi.html
"After this level is the final Acheulian springs, with occasional
Acheulian bifaces found there. Some faunal remains found were ostrich
eggshell, a tooth belonging to a warthog, and other bones. This period
ended when the spring dried up. This was followed by a significant
period of eolian erosion."

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

If our ancestors did go in the water:
"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

Result:
http://home.att.net/~crinaustin/Croc_files/image003.jpg

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

FYI: Homo is not Ardipithecus ramidus.


³? if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there²

If ever our earliest ancestors were divers, we must have been the most
profligate
swimmers in the pool.

"Mind you, its amazing how people can delude themselves into
believing
the impossible! And I would put the: "nah I wont get taken by a croc,
'cause the crocs are small and not there etc. into the class called:
'logical fantasies". This can be believed by the most "intelligent"
people, including Johanson! I was doing a dig at Alia Bay (south of
Koobi Fora) in '87, and each afternoon when we finished for the day,
we
would go down to the shores of Lake Turkana and have a wash. People
("intelligent white people") would throw themselves in the water and
swim and wash, I stayed at the back in knee deep water, praying that
if
there were any crocs around at the time, they would take the stupid
"B's" who were further out!" Su Solomon


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.

Of course the fallacy of this statement is the fact that acquiring any
food surplus or fighting by chimps will facilitate upright posture,
water is irrelevant. See Takayoshi Kano: THE LAST APE 1992 page 4, 64,
125, 177, 181.



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

OPINION now becomes a replacement for original research?


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,

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


and this includes upright posture

Another illiterate that has not read Kano



to cope with increased water depth as our
ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore.²

No they didn't:

http://tinyurl.com/y44rnt


Wrangham 2005 ³Here I follow the conventional assumption that hominins
began in the savanna.²

1926 thinking.
Homo is of course first found on the savanna.


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

Of course the fallacy of this statement is the fact that acquiring any
food surplus or fighting by chimps will facilitate upright posture,
water is irrelevant. See Takayoshi Kano: THE LAST APE 1992 page 4, 64,
125, 177, 181.


Alemseged 2006 ³I believe we should just put the savannah theory aside.

1926 strawman thinking again, will these people ever grow up?
The Savanna Hypothesis is about Homo, not about A'piths.

FYI:
Message-ID: <430278c8$0$18483$ba620e4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MV: "AAT is about what made Homo special & different from Pan, it's
not about apiths!
AAT is not about apes, but about humans: what makes us different from
chimps."


I think they basically became biped while they were living in a wooded,
covered environment ?²

Duh, start of biped does not explain anything about endurant
bipedalism of Homo.
We all know chimps can't catch an adult kudu on the savanna.

http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups have traditionally practiced "persistence hunting,"
chasing antelopes or other game in the midday heat, often for hours,
until the animals overheat and collapse."

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

Early hominids is not the same as early Homo on the savanna.
Wrong species again.
Message-ID: <430278c8$0$18483$ba620e4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MV: "AAT is about what made Homo special & different from Pan, it's
not about apiths!
AAT is not about apes, but about humans: what makes us different from
chimps."

Message-ID: <1124058632.360214.177290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Jason: "You should be more concerned with your inability to come up
with an FOR your scenario. 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."

.

Loading