Re: <geen onderwerp>



Xth illustration of how stupid SFs are:


Op 14-12-2008 04:05, in artikel 49447814.C281C655@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

...
Hi Everyone
I have been surfing and found a blog on the Aquatic Ape theory, but
the person who has spoken out about it, is being attacked by those who
don't like AAT.
So i don't know if anyone here wants to help him out, if not i will
have a go.
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/05/01/the-aquatic-ape-hypothesis/
William

Thanks a lot, William.
I just sent them this (I hope they¹ll approve it):
Somebody wants to defend AAT on the basis of:
1. Humans have subcutaneous fat, other primates don¹t. Other aquatic
mammals
do. The fat serves as insulation.
2. Humans have almost no fur, other primates do. Other aquatic mammals
don¹t. Fur creates drag in the water.
3. Humans are bipedal. Walking upright keeps the head out of the water,
allowing breathing.
These 3 arguments can easily be dismissed:
1. Sea otters have no SC fat.
2. They have an extremely dense fur.
3. They¹re not bipedal.
And these arguments can be repeated for a lot of other (semi)aquatic
mammals.
The point is: most features that discern humans from chimps are *in
different combinations* typically seen in waterside mammals that spend a
lot
of their time in the water: large brain, high sodium, iodine, DHA & water
needs, head & spine & legs on 1 line, dexterity & stone use, external nose
etc.

our dimwit didn't know what to answer on
- large brain
- high sodium needs
- high iodine needs
- high water needs
- high DHA etc needs
...
but believed he could answer this:

Humans do not spend a lot of time in water.

Our dimwit doesn't realize that trumps all his reasons.

1) tell that to the Moken, Ama, etc

"even if so, so what" thanks Marc!

2) even if so, so what?? nobody said such a thing, my boy: I say that
humans have lots of rudiments that clearly point to seafood collection once

No "rudiments" needed to pick up shellfish, klein kind.

- why not inform a little bit before opening your big mouth??

Humans *modify* stone tools.

so??
what had you thought??

And dolphins and otters don't. Thanks again Marc!

External nose has nothing to do with water association.

says a prejudiced dimwit

Proof an external nose has something to do with water ->

Head and legs and spine
are in one line becauses humans are obligate bipedal primates.

??
don't be ridiculous, my boy

ostriches have horizontal spines

Not a primate, Marc.

penguins have vertical spines

Not a primate, Marc.

tarsiers have flexed legs

Not an obligate biped, Marc.

humans run bent forward
kangaroos have horizontal spines

Not a primate, Marc.

etc
etc

etc
etc

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Motives for writing to PAs about the AAH (Re: What is the Aquatic theory?
    ... Or, like Marc Verhaegen, do you ... >>bipedalism and have agreed that wading in water can facilitate bipedal ... >>Pleistocene that may have facilitated the spread of modern humans. ... That he didn't think adapting to coastal living is the same as living ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re:
    ... Marc Verhaegen wrote: ... Humans have almost no fur, other primates do. ... Fur creates drag in the water. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re:
    ... Mth illustration of what a coward Marc is. ... Humans have almost no fur, other primates do. ... Fur creates drag in the water. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... >> fresh water. ... I do not dispute that in extreme circumstances humans, indeed apes, can ... we have more of it there than chimps do. ... Swimming is one of the standard modes of animal locomotion through one ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... >> Except that there were and are thousands and thousands of humans who ... >> replenished water. ... There are savanna chimps. ... Obesity Trends in Latin America: ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)