Re: Sabretooths

Marc Verhaegen:
Mario Petrinovich:
We have animals that live both, in
water and on land. In water they have to have much greater
thermo-insulation.

Not necessarily "greater", but different, eg, a fur has no function in the
water, except for small semi-aquatics (that have to groomed it
intensively).

Different and greater. Furred animals cannot live in water (with
their "terrestrial" fur), while aquatics can live on land with their
blubber, only if they find a way to get rid of excess heat, even if they are
in very cold regions.

I am not very much into paleoanthropology anymore, otherwise I
would
develop more my cattle-herding concept. This involves living at the edge
of
water and performing "firestick farming", thus attracting cattle towards
where humans live, as one safe place for cattle, and merging the life of
humans and cattle. This, actually, ISN'T very much different (if, at all)
from the life humans are living today. So I really don't know what would
be
the problem for this to be true? I mean, as I said before, under the
great
influence of Byble, people got impression that today we are extremly
smart,
hence in the past we were too stupid to live the kind of life we are
living
today. Recent japanesee research (thankfully Japaners don't read Byble)
showed that this simply isn't true. So, I ask you Marc, why wouldn't we
live in the past the same type of life we are living today.

In that case we were still living in the trees, without tools etc.
Don't forget 5 Ma P ancestors were H ancestors. Why aren't chimps living
our type of life?

I don't think so. We had bipedality during Valessian crisis. This
was our bipedality. Chimps weren't bipedal in the past.

Something like Masais.

The Masaai life is very specialised & recent. No other humans live like
that.

Other humans use other, newer, techologies.

Along with their cottages they are living in, along with spears,
fire and everything else. The difference came with agriculture, the use
of
metal, and the writting. If it wasn't for this, we would still be living
like that.

We would still be living the oceanic islander life you mean.

The shore dwelling, firestick farming life, alongside cattle. Of
course, before that we were rocky coast dwellers (cliff-hangers).

If we lost body hair because
of AAT and the immersion of our body in water, we definitely didn't
lose
it
on our head. Not that we DIDN'T lose it, we even have too much of it.
Which is quite the opposite situation from our body.

We could have lost it totally & regrown on our scalp (just as men
"regrow"
beard & moustache). But when the human (& chimp) fetus becomes naked
(7th
fetal month or so) this process stops at the forehead, leaving our scalp
haired. BTW, this suggests the H/P LCA (& possibly even the gr.ape LCA)
had
a naked body. All gr.apes lack underfur (which suggests the gr.ape LCA
c.16 Ma in the Tethys coastal forests lacked body hair).

I don't know about that underfur thing. This possibly could be
for
different reasons. I would have to know the condition of underfur in all
primates.
But, apart from this, head hair fits nicely in the scenario where
head is abouve water, and body is below water.

??
The food is in the water, not at the surface.

Yes, but you are below water only for a minute. Then you put your
head above water, right below hot sun. Hair protects you in that situation,
because it is wet, and hair generally shield body from sun when dry.

If we want to explain our big brain, we simply have to compare to
other
animals with big brains, no matter their thermo-regulation.
Waterside, aquatic, arboreal, omnivorous...mammals have big brains: no
wonder humans have very big brains.

We have extremly big brain. This is an extreme situation, not
seen before or after.

Not unexpected: arboreals typically have brains about twice as big as
equally large ground-dwellers, (semi)aquatic about 3 x as terrestrials.
2x3=6. --Marc

: ) Nice mathematics, but I don't think that this mutliplies that
way. I think that what I say has more sense. -- Mario Petrinovich

You think a lot, Mario. --marc

Take a look at H.floresiensis. It is an ANCIENT Homo. It doesn't fit
your mathematics at all. Floresiensis retained ancient characteristics,
because it IS ancient (animal), which also is reflected in other ancient
fauna it is found in (Komodo dragon). H.floresiensis wasn't affected (was
separated from) by Homo moving north. H.floresiensis PERFECTLY fits my view.
I do think alright. -- Mario Petrinovich


.

Relevant Pages

  • Endtime Indications -12/18/07
    ... water to thirsty villages, the newspaper added. ... one kind of stress that can be very damaging to people is the stress, ... A life changes scale which help you recognize the wide range of ... A distress scale, that allow you to indicate the ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Different advice for beginners? Revisited... Chapter and Verse
    ... I elected to play in places that worked for the guitar ... without warning, there is a break in the calm water, and from its ... At One with nature, one with music, life is ... Why do armadillos get hit by cars so often? ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Life processes depend primarily on biochemical mechanisms, ... which gravity is a fairly insignificant influence. ... In many areas of the planet today, underground water seeps up to the ... Increase gravity some and that underground water stays underground. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... In many areas of the planet today, underground water seeps up to the ... Increase gravity some and that underground water stays underground. ... life has been able to adapt and thrive, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Life processes depend primarily on biochemical mechanisms, ... which gravity is a fairly insignificant influence. ... In many areas of the planet today, underground water seeps up to the ... Increase gravity some and that underground water stays underground. ...
    (talk.origins)