Re: WL too stupid too see the difference between fish & shellfish

On Feb 6, 12:56 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:54 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 6, 8:00 am, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Lee, if you believe coastlines have not diminished since the
Pleistocene you are just as whacky as the AAT guys.

No one said they didn't. But.... no one sits around and let's the tide
wash
over them either, except total idiots.  To make this very simple. What
do you
think will happen when New York starts to go under when the water
slowly
rises from global warming? Duh, they will move to higher ground. The
rest of
New York could be buried under the ocean all the way to Iceland
and it will still not make one iota of difference to the survival of
the *last* site.

I think that all the lithics and all the cemeteries of new york would
then be underwater and that the only people you would find in the
fossil record would be the people who were living when the water
levels rose.

Yep, and in the case of Morocco, the ones that are left high and dry
are
well over one million years old (and inland, just as the Angola whale
site).
In fact, an entire sequence is there, one raised beach stacked on
another.


In the case of the ice age, that means you won't find any erectus
fossils or lithics on the coast because they went extinct before the
water levels rose. Therefore all traces of their coastal existence
would be not only under ground, but also underwater.

Nope. They do find them, just not associated with eating clams, that's
all.








Yawn, for the 50th time:

Clark (1992:23):
"Stage III is found in an adjcent quarry--called S.T.I.C.--and is in a
primary
context. the artifacts occur with vertebrate fauna in a limestone
layer overlying
the regressive Maarifian beach gravel. The activity area is associated
with a
freshwater stream that drained onto the beach nearby. The faunal
remains all
come from large terrestrial mammals and there is no indication, at
this or any
other site in Morocco, that marine fauna was made use of."

J. Desmond Clark 1992
The Earlier Stone Age/Lower Paleolithic in North Africa and the
Sahara. In
(F. Klees and R. Kuper, Eds) New Light on the Northeast African Past,
pp.17-37. African Praehistorica, 5. Koln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

Being a layman, I still don't see your point. Is an isolated place on
the planet your trying to use as a blanket, I kind of gather.

Nope, an entire sequence of raised beaches are there and inland, just
as
at Angola. I used to find fossilized crabs in concretions over 100
feet above
the tide flats, and the only reason we didn't go higher is because the
bank
got too steep.








By 6000 BC, waters had risen at least 150 meters since 17000 BC.

I can link you to a very good chart that shows what the coastlines
were like in any stage between 100,000 and 10,000 ybp if you need me
to.

Moot point,  see citation.

 getting

* to Java as a migratory event of some kind which is
* what use of a word like "travelled" seems to imply.
* Homo erectus expanded its range out of Africa along
* with a lot of other savannah animals. It's how we got
* hippos in England at the time of Swanscombe and
* Boxgrove and got giraffe and ostriches at Dmanisi.
* I don't understand what you mean by the placement
* of fossils indicating shellfish eating. Which fossils would
* indicate this?

Every reconstruction I have seen of the migrations of homo erectus
show them going along the coast to get from Africa to Sundaland. None
of them show them going up into the middle east and through north
India and over the mountains  to get there. Along the west coast of
Sundaland, they pretty much had to go along the coast to get to Java
unless they were mountain climbers. I assumed this is because of where
the fossils are found. There seem to be no fossils at all along the
southern coasts between Africa and Sunda even though this is the exact
route shown by all the re-inactments I have seen. Since they didn't
fly from Afric to Java or from Dmanisi to Java, it seems to me that
this is a quite logical reinactment; there are no fossils because the
easiest route to Java is the coast and the coast is submerged.

The middle of India is not the coast, you have been lied to.

What's in the middle of India?

Acheulean sites = Homo e. However, I'm not certain the same can be
said
about Hss sites in India being older than the oldest Hss sites farther
east.

I know there's some cro-magnon sites and maybe even a neanderthal
site, but we're talking about erectus. Would love to see a link to the
new erectus  fossil find in the middle of India, though, if you have
it.

I'll see if I can find the map, it is in a journal--- might be on
line--- but then again
you might have to pay to get the article.

[...]

Hence, since there's no evidence for boats before 15000 BC, man did
not get to Australia between 40,000 and 6,000 like they tell us he
did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4230821.stm
If you need any more examples, just Google.


All Erectus on the coasts between africa and java have been buried by
not only earth, but also water.

Nope.

All erectus in the fossil record were not living on the coasts,
because the coasts disappeared after they went extinct.

Nope, see Angola whale and Morocco.

Therefore, the
erectus fossils we DO find were the ones living inland. Of course
those inland erecti did not eat shellfish, because guess what? THOSE
erecti were not on the coast and could not get shellfish (except for
maybe the rare freshwater variety.

Who said rare? If they turn up later in the same area, you need to
demonstrate
why they were rare 1 million years ago and not later. You also have
shells well
away from the sea in South Africa in caves---later, not earlier. So
after 400 kya
to 125 kya you have some evidence, before that you have 1 possible cut-
marked
carfish bone, not exactly overwhelming evidence for 2 million years
time.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/2015/

.

Relevant Pages