Re: Kudu runners

On Jan 21, 1:28 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in...
e_id=452733&in_page_id=1811

http://blogs.menupages.com/boston/Boston-marathon-45.3.jpg
http://dogsandjen.org/running/chicago06/start.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/34/325px-Marine....
rathon2006.jpg
 Long distance running is one of the great skills of humans when compared to
 other species.

Yes, along beaches.
Not on dry land:

Liar.


The first who ran the marathon dropped dead.
Yes, and? Didn't you look at the pictures above?

Yes, of course, thanks my boy: nice illustrations of our beach-combing
ancestors ;)

http://tinyurl.com/233kfr



My little boy, stop attacking strawmen.
Nobody denies that humans can run, but only imbeciles conclude from that
that our ancestors 2 Ma ran after kudus.  Got it?

Only people with a bit of insight know that our ancestors from 2 Ma swam and
dived regularly:

Liar.


AAT:
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)

Liar.



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

Says the amateur nut-case who thinks mountain beavers are semiaquatic.



Waterside collection of, eg, fruits, (coco)nuts, turtle & bird eggs, shell &
crayfish, water(side)plants, drowned herbivores, stranded whales etc.

Liar

explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes & australopiths) better than
dwelling in forests or dry plains: 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 (DHA), etc.

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




Homo & Pan separated ~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...

Irrelevant. Gona, on the savanna, is a million years before Homo
finally
spread out to other habitats. Never did early Homo favor a sea-shore
lifestyle.


* 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

All amateurs or people writing outside their field of expertise.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading