Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
- From: Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 16, 10:02 pm, nickname <alas_my_lo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:33 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/c...300857029.html
*AUSTRALIAN scientists working on an archaeological cave dig in South Africa
have found evidence that some prehistoric humans began eating seafood and
painting up to 30,000 years earlier than had been thought.
This comment here doesn't make sense. Us hominids have been
(relatively) larger brained, multi-habitat, (and niche independent),
and highly communicative. And we've been this way for upwards of a
millions of years. Why wouldn't we expect them to have at least
started to exploit seafood, and occasionally occupy aquatic/littoral
habitat? What's the big deal? Likewise we'd expect them to begin to
search for food in many varied habitats, mountains, swamp, treeless
habitat, etc. So, Marc, if you are using this as evidence that
supports your notion that, "hominids had a more aquatic
past," (whatever that means) you're off your rocker.
The discovery of this artistic, beach-loving, lobster-chomping hominid (I do
hope they christen him "Bronte-saurus") is invaluable to the understanding
of our forebears.
It is? Why? I'm not catching on, here. How is this, "invaluable?"
"It is hard to get into the mind of early people and find
out what they were thinking," a University of NSW archaeologist, Dr Andy
Herries, said.*
I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. he first time I read about AAT it
made perfect sense. Evolution requires purpose.
Uh , , er. Uh. . . and cars require tires. But so what.
The first spear was for impaling fish. The first rock tool was for breaking
shellfish. It's all so very logical.
Absurd logic.
I daresay it will become the accepted theory over time. The savannah one is
pretty much out the window now.
Yeah, but the reason it is out the window is for the same reason that
AAT will never make it in the window. Both AAT and Conventional
Theory are completely unable to describe the selective orgins of
hominid intellectual and communal behaviors/adaptations.
SAT can't fail, it's a mythology like creationism, it can only be
forgotten and replaced by another mythology (Von Danniken?).
AAT is just a series of facts, apes have a history of heavy water
dependence,
Absurd.
Human ancestors even more so. Even today, with modern
technology, 50% of humans live within 50 miles of coasts,
Yeah, so? All animals need water.
almost no
one lives on savannas without piped water and salt trade, and those
that lack those amenities are nomadic herders who depend upon milk on
the hoof and traveling to watered pastures.
Obviously early hominids (A'pith through HE) would have shunned
treeless savanna habitat.
Communal behaviors are found in many monkey species,
Irrelevant. Communal behaviors are found in many species, not just
monkey species.
With early hominids (A'pith) these behaviors took a peculiar and
distinctive form with the communal territorialism that emerged as the
main strategy of survival of the dry season (and it's predatory
implications). For more details see my hypothesis: http://tinyurl.com/5b5tmu
none of which are naked skinned
Incidental.
with subcutaneous fat at birth born underwater like many
modern human babies (and all communal dolphin babies) are born.
Incidental nonsense. The adaptations that matter with humans/hominids
are things like language, intelligence, culture, manipulative
abilities, consciousness. You about have to have your head up your
ass to believe that incidental adaptations like nakedness and
subcutaneous are even worth discussing. Why don't you tell us how
water was involved with the selection of language. If nothing else
your explanation should be good for a few laughs.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
- References:
- Both SAT and AAT have failed
- From: Claudius Denk
- Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
- From: nickname
- Both SAT and AAT have failed
- Prev by Date: Re: "I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The savannah one is pretty much out the window now."
- Next by Date: Re: "I've never liked the Savannah hypothesis. The savannah one is pretty much out the window now."
- Previous by thread: Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
- Next by thread: Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
