AAT = Homo littoral diaspora

[Marc Verha]

"Aquatic Ape Theory" is an inaccurate term: it's not about
apes, nor about having been aquatic. AAT states that our
ancestors sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied partly on
aquatic resources:
- "Homo": AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has nothing to
do with australopiths,
- "littoral": it's about our ancestors having been shoreline
dwellers (coast/lake/riverside),
- "diaspora": Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far
as Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java)
etc.: AAT simply says that these people got there along
shorelines, not over dry plains. Leading PAs such as
Ph.Tobias http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm &
Chr.Stringer now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline
dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Paul Crowl]

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:44b0e912$0$1213$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...

> "Aquatic Ape Theory" is an inaccurate term: it's not about
> apes, nor about having been aquatic. AAT states that our
> ancestors sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied partly on
> aquatic resources:

Does it also state that grass is green, and that night
follows day?

> - "Homo": AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has nothing
> to do with australopiths,
> - "littoral": it's about our ancestors having been shoreline
> dwellers (coast/lake/riverside),
> - "diaspora": Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far
> as Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto
> (Java) etc.: AAT simply says that these people got there
> along shorelines, not over dry plains. Leading PAs such as
> Ph.Tobias http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> & Chr.Stringer now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline
> dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

This is a pathetic attempt to find a 'lowest common
denominator' theory. So what if it says nothing?

Psychology went through the same process about 30-40 years
ago. They abolished 'schools of thought' -- because they
fought with each other too much. Of course, they also
abolished thought. But they had a real motive. They had
(more by accident than design) done a decent con-job on a
gullible public, and they wanted to cash in -- which is what
they've done ever since.

Is there some cash motive involved here? Are AAT people
looking for academic posts? It does not make sense, but I
can't think of any other reason.

Paul.

[Chapstick]

the last link in this post does not work. --chap

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:44b0e912$0$1213$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> "Aquatic Ape Theory" is an inaccurate term: it's not about
> apes, nor about having been aquatic. AAT states that our
> ancestors sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied partly on
> aquatic resources:
> - "Homo": AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has nothing
> to do with australopiths,
> - "littoral": it's about our ancestors having been shoreline
> dwellers (coast/lake/riverside),
> - "diaspora": Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far
> as Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto
> (Java) etc.: AAT simply says that these people got there
> along shorelines, not over dry plains. Leading PAs such as
> Ph.Tobias http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> & Chr.Stringer now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline
> dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> --Marc Verhaegen
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
>
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Spiznet]

Chapstick wrote:
> the last link in this post does not work. --chap
>
> >
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
> >
> >
Gosh did you have to tell him!? Thats the best link hes got!!

[Jim McGinn]

It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional dimwits
that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody will be able
to dispute it.

[Marc Verha]

"Chapstick" <chapstick@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sqBsg.6937$4c7.1575@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> the last link in this post does not work. --chap

Thanks, chap. I'll try to find out what is wrong. Meanwhile
you can find my papers in the files of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT Thanks!

Best

--Marc
_________

> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:44b0e912$0$1213$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> > "Aquatic Ape Theory" is an inaccurate term: it's not about
> > apes, nor
about
> > having been aquatic. AAT states that our ancestors
> > sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied partly on aquatic
> > resources:
> > - "Homo": AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has
> > nothing to do with australopiths,
> > - "littoral": it's about our ancestors having been
> > shoreline dwellers (coast/lake/riverside),
> > - "diaspora": Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as
> > far as Ain
Hanech
> > (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java) etc.: AAT
> > simply says
that
> > these people got there along shorelines, not over dry
> > plains. Leading
PAs
> > such as Ph.Tobias
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm &
> > Chr.Stringer now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline
> > dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
> >
> > --Marc Verhaegen
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
> >
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
> >
>

[Marc Verha]

This should work http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaege-
n_Human_Evolution.html

--Marc
______

"Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:44b40f51$0$5532$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>
> "Chapstick" <chapstick@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:sqBsg.6937$4c7.1575@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> > the last link in this post does not work. --chap
>
> Thanks, chap. I'll try to find out what is wrong. Meanwhile
> you can find my papers in the files of
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT Thanks!
>
> Best
>
> --Marc
> _________
>
> > "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > news:44b0e912$0$1213$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> > > "Aquatic Ape Theory" is an inaccurate term: it's not
> > > about apes, nor
> about
> > > having been aquatic. AAT states that our ancestors
> > > sometime after the Homo/Pan split relied partly on
> > > aquatic resources:
> > > - "Homo": AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has
> > > nothing to do with australopiths,
> > > - "littoral": it's about our ancestors having been
> > > shoreline dwellers (coast/lake/riverside),
> > > - "diaspora": Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as
> > > far as Ain
> Hanech
> > > (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java) etc.: AAT
> > > simply says
> that
> > > these people got there along shorelines, not over dry
> > > plains. Leading
> PAs
> > > such as Ph.Tobias
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm &
> > > Chr.Stringer now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline
> > > dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
> > >
> > > --Marc Verhaegen
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
> > >
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[McLark]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152585980.327869.253820@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
> dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
> will be able to dispute it.

Lucky for me, I've recently souped up the irony-o-meter so
that now, whenever Dimmy hits the enter key, the lights in the
house are only momentarily dimmed. Gives new meaning to
"Dimmy", don't you think?

--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
--Voltaire

[Day Brown]

Jim McGinn wrote:
> It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
> dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
> will be able to dispute it.
>
I thot "littoral" was reasonably precise, and certainly an
evolutionary advantage given the high quality of protein and
the use that neuro transmitters make of fish oil in promoting
superior mental development.

And while I dont dispute the value of freshly killed
herbivores, I note that the men physically capable of doing
this are not the most self-controlled. The impulsive abuse of
hunters leads to a lower survival rate for kids. We see recent
data that even shaking a baby or toddler bangs the prefrontal
lobes against the inside of the skull and causes scare
tissue... and presumably lower IQ scores.

I dont preclude hominids from living in the savanna, but the
shorelines would have supported much higher populations, and
therefore had much greater impact on the gene pool and hominid
evolution.

I know of a woman killed by some kind of a large cat (never
caught) in my neck of Ozark woods a few years go. The savanna
would not have been the place for the risk averse- more docile
beta males, but the shores would have permitted them to breed
year in year out. The shores dont have chronic droughts. Even
something like El Nino is still a local kind of shoreline
event. The vast majority of the ocean shores would not ever
change very much from decade to decade.

But hominids on the savanna would have gone thru the same kind
of boom and bust cycles as the other animals there. Why would
we assume that all hominids lived only in the same kind of
ecosystem with the same culture given the variety we see now?
No, the lesson of the hominids is that they exploit all
possible ecosystems, and the littoral is a richer one.

[Claudius D]

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:xIgug.103$tx4.129151@news.sisna.com...
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>> It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
>> dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
>> will be able to dispute it.
>>
> I thot "littoral" was reasonably precise, and certainly an
> evolutionary advantage given the high quality of protein and
> the use that neuro transmitters make of fish oil in
> promoting superior mental development.
>
> And while I dont dispute the value of freshly killed
> herbivores, I note that the men physically capable of doing
> this are not the most self-controlled. The impulsive abuse
> of hunters leads to a lower survival rate for kids. We see
> recent data that even shaking a baby or toddler bangs the
> prefrontal lobes against the inside of the skull and causes
> scare tissue... and presumably lower IQ scores.
>
> I dont preclude hominids from living in the savanna, but the
> shorelines would have supported much higher populations, and
> therefore had much greater impact on the gene pool and
> hominid evolution.
>
> I know of a woman killed by some kind of a large cat (never
> caught) in my neck of Ozark woods a few years go. The
> savanna would not have been the place for the risk averse-
> more docile beta males, but the shores would have permitted
> them to breed year in year out. The shores dont have chronic
> droughts. Even something like El Nino is still a local kind
> of shoreline event. The vast majority of the ocean shores
> would not ever change very much from decade to decade.
>
> But hominids on the savanna would have gone thru the same
> kind of boom and bust cycles as the other animals there. Why
> would we assume that all hominids lived only in the same
> kind of ecosystem with the same culture given the variety we
> see now? No, the lesson of the hominids is that they exploit
> all possible ecosystems, and the littoral is a richer one.
>

Littoral is not a selective scenario. It's a habitat.

It's just stupid to think that residing close to water and/or
eating omega 3 based foods would, in and of itself, lead to
hominid/human intelligence/consciousness. It's so stupid it's
not even worth discussing. Obviously hominid/human
intelligence had to do with some kind of selective scenario
whereby groups that possessed such survived and reproduced
while groups that did not or did not as much did not.

[Spiznet]

Day Brown wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote:
> > It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
> > dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
> > will be able to dispute it.
> >
> I thot "littoral" was reasonably precise, and certainly an
> evolutionary advantage given the high quality of protein and
> the use that neuro transmitters make of fish oil in
> promoting superior mental development.
>
> And while I dont dispute the value of freshly killed
> herbivores, I note that the men physically capable of doing
> this are not the most self-controlled. The impulsive abuse
> of hunters leads to a lower survival rate for kids. We see
> recent data that even shaking a baby or toddler bangs the
> prefrontal lobes against the inside of the skull and causes
> scare tissue... and presumably lower IQ scores.
>
> I dont preclude hominids from living in the savanna, but the
> shorelines would have supported much higher populations, and
> therefore had much greater impact on the gene pool and
> hominid evolution.
>
> I know of a woman killed by some kind of a large cat (never
> caught) in my neck of Ozark woods a few years go. The
> savanna would not have been the place for the risk averse-
> more docile beta males, but the shores would have permitted
> them to breed year in year out. The shores dont have chronic
> droughts. Even something like El Nino is still a local kind
> of shoreline event. The vast majority of the ocean shores
> would not ever change very much from decade to decade.
>
> But hominids on the savanna would have gone thru the same
> kind of boom and bust cycles as the other animals there. Why
> would we assume that all hominids lived only in the same
> kind of ecosystem with the same culture given the variety we
> see now? No, the lesson of the hominids is that they exploit
> all possible ecosystems, and the littoral is a richer one.

Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor guys had
to eke it out on the savanna!

What exactly has changed over 4mya?

[Claudius D]

"MClark" <men@work.com> wrote in message
news:N1gug.159$252.37@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11-
> 52585980.327869.253820@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
>> dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
>> will be able to dispute it.
>
> Lucky for me, I've recently souped up the irony-o-meter so
> that now, whenever Dimmy hits the enter key, the lights in
> the house are only momentarily dimmed. Gives new meaning to
> "Dimmy", don't you think?
>
> --
> "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
> 'O, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
> --Voltaire

Why is it you seem to never have anything interesting (or
relevant) to say?

[Day Brown]

spiznet wrote:
> Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor guys had
> to eke it out on the savanna!
>
> What exactly has changed over 4mya?
Well, for one, the poor guys needed better weapons merely to
survive. The shorelines were not nearly as abundant in the
kind of large game that dangerous predators preferred, putting
any large animal, such as the hominids as greater risk.

Then too, the shoreline food gathering process was much more
concentrated with hominids always within sight of each other,
at hand to help deal with a threat. Shorelines are
characteristically free of the kind of tall brush large
predators like to ambush from as well.

On the savanna, communication would often have been at such
great distance that only visible gesture would have worked,
whereas on the shoreline, the whole group is likely to remain
within earshot. As a result, I'd expect the latter to more
fully develop language skills.

And it is here that fish oil and Omega 3 would have been
important as language, and the linear thinking syntax and
grammar come into play.

[McLark]

Claudius Denk wrote:
> "MClark" <men@work.com> wrote in message
> news:N1gug.159$252.37@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:-
> > 1152585980.327869.253820@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
> >> dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
> >> will be able to dispute it.
> >
> > Lucky for me, I've recently souped up the irony-o-meter so
> > that now, whenever Dimmy hits the enter key, the lights in
> > the house are only momentarily dimmed. Gives new meaning
> > to "Dimmy", don't you think?
> >
>
> Why is it you seem to never have anything interesting (or
> relevant) to say?

What ever do you mean, Dank? (Since you're in the mood to
speak through your puppet, I'm in the mood to christen him, er
"it" with something appropriate --hence you're "Dank" and your
alter ego is "Dim". Dank and Dim.) I was merely pointing out
the irony in a statement made by your other personality.
Imagine Dimmy accusing somebody else (even Marco) of
"..keep[ing] your thinking real vague [so]nobody will be able
to dispute it." That statement is both ironic and hilarious.

OK, maybe it isn't interesting but you'll have to admit
it's relevant.

Would you like to go back to discussing Anthropology now
(smirk)?

Mirthfully yours, MClark

[Marc Verha]

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:VhYug.33$rk.129151@news.sisna.com...
> spiznet wrote:
> > Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor guys
> > had to eke it out on the savanna!

Good, spiznet, good, my boy! You got it! :-) Still the case,
eg, the Bantu replaced the KhoiSan to the Kalahiri.
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm

[richardpar]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote in message
> news:VhYug.33$rk.129151@news.sisna.com...
> > spiznet wrote:
> > > Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor guys
> > > had to eke it out on the savanna!
>
> Good, spiznet, good, my boy! You got it! :-) Still the case,
> eg, the Bantu replaced the KhoiSan to the Kalahiri.
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm

Spiznet - you don't always have to accept a compliment from
Marc as only the indicator to his superior intelligence that
it probably and actually is, but do, please, try to come up
with something better than an ! :-) - filled counter, and say
something genuinely useful.

McLark - what can anyone say? Do they now make Zimmer frames
with transistorised instant Insult Generators? If they do, why
don't they make better ones that, repeat, "say something
genuinely useful".

There's one for sale on E-Bay that can only speak Korean, but
is much more intelligible than the stuff you write yourself.

Is this forum a game of darts or a discussion?

regards

Richard

[Rich Travs]

spiznet wrote:
>
> Day Brown wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > It seems Marc that you have learned from conventional
> > > dimwits that if you keep your thinking real vague nobody
> > > will be able to dispute it.
> > >
> > I thot "littoral" was reasonably precise, and certainly an
> > evolutionary advantage given the high quality of protein
> > and the use that neuro transmitters make of fish oil in
> > promoting superior mental development.
> >
> > And while I dont dispute the value of freshly killed
> > herbivores, I note that the men physically capable of
> > doing this are not the most self-controlled. The impulsive
> > abuse of hunters leads to a lower survival rate for kids.
> > We see recent data that even shaking a baby or toddler
> > bangs the prefrontal lobes against the inside of the skull
> > and causes scare tissue... and presumably lower IQ scores.
> >
> > I dont preclude hominids from living in the savanna, but
> > the shorelines would have supported much higher
> > populations, and therefore had much greater impact on the
> > gene pool and hominid evolution.
> >
> > I know of a woman killed by some kind of a large cat
> > (never caught) in my neck of Ozark woods a few years go.
> > The savanna would not have been the place for the risk
> > averse- more docile beta males, but the shores would have
> > permitted them to breed year in year out. The shores dont
> > have chronic droughts. Even something like El Nino is
> > still a local kind of shoreline event. The vast majority
> > of the ocean shores would not ever change very much from
> > decade to decade.
> >
> > But hominids on the savanna would have gone thru the same
> > kind of boom and bust cycles as the other animals there.
> > Why would we assume that all hominids lived only in the
> > same kind of ecosystem with the same culture given the
> > variety we see now? No, the lesson of the hominids is that
> > they exploit all possible ecosystems, and the littoral is
> > a richer one.
>
> Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor guys had
> to eke it out on the savanna!
>
> What exactly has changed over 4mya?

The poor guys in the savanna developed tool kits and spread
all over the world and became the rich guys.

[Rich Travs]

Day Brown wrote:
>
> spiznet wrote:
> > Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor guys
> > had to eke it out on the savanna!
> >
> > What exactly has changed over 4mya?
> Well, for one, the poor guys needed better weapons merely to
> survive.

IOW, the savanna had more incentive to develop tools and
intellect.

> The shorelines were not nearly as abundant in the kind of
> large game that dangerous predators preferred, putting any
> large animal, such as the hominids as greater risk.
>
> Then too, the shoreline food gathering process was much more
> concentrated with hominids always within sight of each
> other, at hand to help deal with a threat. Shorelines are
> characteristically free of the

This is contradictory. There's no predators, but the close
groupings of hominids let them deal with them...

> kind of tall brush large predators like to ambush from
> as well.

Huh? Sand dunes? And the grass that can grow on them?

> On the savanna, communication would often have been at such
> great distance that only visible gesture would have worked,
> whereas on the shoreline, the whole group is likely to
> remain within earshot. As a result, I'd expect the latter to
> more fully develop language skills.

And the savanna group never got together? ;)

> And it is here that fish oil and Omega 3 would have been
> important as language, and the linear thinking syntax and
> grammar come into play.

[Marc Verha]

<richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153569015.335531.67560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> > "Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net> wrote in message
> > news:VhYug.33$rk.129151@news.sisna.com...
> > > spiznet wrote:
> > > > Okay, so the rich guys lived at the shore, the poor
> > > > guys had to eke
it
> > > > out on the savanna!

> > Good, spiznet, good, my boy! You got it! :-) Still the
> > case, eg, the Bantu replaced the KhoiSan to the Kalahiri.
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm

(Sorry, it's Kalahari, of course, but even spiznet knows
that I hope.)

> Spiznet - you don't always have to accept a compliment from
> Marc as only the indicator to his superior intelligence that
> it probably and actually is, but do, please, try to come up
> with something better than an ! :-) - filled counter, and
> say something genuinely useful. McLark - what can anyone
> say? Do they now make Zimmer frames with transistorised
> instant Insult Generators? If they do, why don't they make
> better ones that, repeat, "say something genuinely useful".
> There's one for sale on E-Bay that can only speak Korean,
> but is much more intelligible than the stuff you write
> yourself. Is this forum a game of darts or a discussion?
> regards Richard

Perhaps, Richard, they're saying something useful (you never
know), but unfortunately I killfiled them. If they're really
interested in discussing AAT, they can always join us at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT AFAICS we're the fastest
growing & the most active & informative discussion group on
human evolution - if they're fast they can our 400th member.
Welcome spiznet & mclark! :-)

Homo littoral diaspora
- Homo: AAT, contrary to what many PAs think, has nothing to
do with australopiths,
- littoral: it's about our ancestors having been shoreline
dwellers (coast/lake/river-side),
- diaspora: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as
Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java)
etc. AAT simply says that these people got there along
seacoasts & rivers, not over dry plains. Leading PAs such as
Ph.Tobias http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm &
Chr.Stringer http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html
now agree with a water-rich past & shoreline dispersals.

--Marc Verhaegen