savanna theory

[Marc Verha]

Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still what
savanna theorists think? or do they have other explanations
today? Just wanted to know...

--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

[richardpar]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
> bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still
> what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
> explanations today?

No you didn't "Just want to know..." , Marc,

you've stuck your head over the parapet, and are inviting all
the regular shit-slingers to have a go at you. Take a bit of
time, go back to your surgeon's training and the medical
dictionary, look up the symptoms of 'masochism' , and the
recommended cures, if any, and then give up asking all these
floppy ends of human guts if they've got any answer to your
challenges, because they haven't.

It's not worth asking a semi-literate human cloacum for a
genuine opinion, because you already know what you'll get.

regards Richard

[Spiznet]

Remember, Paul, AAT has NOTHING to do with Apes, nothing to do
with living in water & being "aquatic", and is not even really
a theory, its just good common sense!!!

The min-theory as you put it ("early man spent time in
waterside environments"), is a scam by Verheiden to sucker
nice sensible folks into the folds of his cloacum, where he
can, down the line,, reveal that man didn't actually evolve
from chimps, chimps evolved from a'pith/man!!!! Yohoho.

Paul Crowley wrote:
> <richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:115392087-
> 0.950670.124810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> >> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> >> and bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this
> >> still what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
> >> explanations today?
> >
> > No you didn't "Just want to know..." , Marc,
> >
> > you've stuck your head over the parapet, and are inviting
> > all the regular shit-slingers to have a go at you. Take a
> > bit of time, go back to your surgeon's training and the
> > medical dictionary, look up the symptoms of 'masochism' ,
> > and the recommended cures, if any, and then give up asking
> > all these floppy ends of human guts if they've got any
> > answer to your challenges, because they haven't.
> >
> > It's not worth asking a semi-literate human cloacum for a
> > genuine opinion, because you already know what you'll get.
>
> While we're here, please tell us what the new 'minimalist'
> AAH (MIN-AAH) states about the reasons for fat, the absence
> of fur, sweating, and bipedalism.
>
> Or (as I suspect) has it forbidden all discussion of any
> issue that could possibly be divisive in the new
> all-inclusive MIN-AAH camp?
>
>
> Paul.

[John Roth]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
> bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still what
> savanna theorists think? or do they have other explanations
> today? Just wanted to know...
>
> --Marc Verhaegen
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never called
that by real paleoanthropologists) died in the mid 90s when
paleoclimate studies showed that there wasn't a savanna
environment in Africa at the time bipedalism evolved. Current
studies show a fairly strong association with an open forest
(woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.) environment.

Your credibility might take an upward nudge if you learned
something about current paleoanthropology.

John Roth

[Paul Crowl]

<richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153920870.950670.124810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
>> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
>> bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still
>> what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
>> explanations today?
>
> No you didn't "Just want to know..." , Marc,
>
> you've stuck your head over the parapet, and are inviting
> all the regular shit-slingers to have a go at you. Take a
> bit of time, go back to your surgeon's training and the
> medical dictionary, look up the symptoms of 'masochism' ,
> and the recommended cures, if any, and then give up asking
> all these floppy ends of human guts if they've got any
> answer to your challenges, because they haven't.
>
> It's not worth asking a semi-literate human cloacum for a
> genuine opinion, because you already know what you'll get.

While we're here, please tell us what the new 'minimalist' AAH
(MIN-AAH) states about the reasons for fat, the absence of
fur, sweating, and bipedalism.

Or (as I suspect) has it forbidden all discussion of any issue
that could possibly be divisive in the new all-inclusive
MIN-AAH camp?

Paul.

[Rick Wagle]

<richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153920870.950670.124810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
>> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
>> bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still
>> what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
>> explanations today?
>
> No you didn't "Just want to know..." , Marc,
>
> you've stuck your head over the parapet, and are inviting
> all the regular shit-slingers to have a go at you. Take a
> bit of time, go back to your surgeon's training and the
> medical dictionary, look up the symptoms of 'masochism' ,
> and the recommended cures, if any, and then give up asking
> all these floppy ends of human guts if they've got any
> answer to your challenges, because they haven't.
>
> It's not worth asking a semi-literate human cloacum for a
> genuine opinion, because you already know what you'll get.
>
> regards Richard
>
This semi-literate human cloacum would like to know why I am
required to answer Marc's inept strawman concoctions?

Rick Wagler

[Marc Verha]

"John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
> > bipedalism to reduce
exposure
> > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists think? or
> > do they have other explanations today? Just wanted to
> > know...

> Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never called
> that by real paleoanthropologists

1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please first try
to read properly. I used "savanna theory/theorists".
2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't know
what you're talking about, my boy, please inform a bit, eg,
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm written by
a very very real PA...

) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in Africa at
> the time bipedalism evolved.

Ah?

Current studies show a fairly strong association
> with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.)
> environment. Your credibility might take an upward nudge
> if you learned something about current paleoanthropology.
> John Roth

3) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what unfortunately is
still very much alive in PA: just-so stories like "we
became fully bipedal and as intelligent as we are with all
our cultural flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores
and carnivores" are written this year, 2006...
http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
4) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any more
(good boy!), please tell us what alternative scenario you
have. Just wanted to know what you have in mind... Care to
tell us why IYO we lost of our fur, became bipedal, got a
lot of fat underneath our skin, evolved sweating? Just
curious. I'd like to learn.
5) Which current studies IYO show strong association with open
forest? Please tell us.

--Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://use-
rs.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html

[Marc Verha]

"Rick Wagler" <taxidea3@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DSPxg.242822$Mn5.50352@pd7tw3no...

> >> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> >> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> >> and bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this
> >> still what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
> >> explanations today?

> > No you didn't "Just want to know..." , Marc, you've stuck
> > your head over the parapet, and are inviting all the
> > regular shit-slingers to have a go at you. Take a bit of
> > time, go back to your surgeon's training and the medical
> > dictionary, look up the symptoms of 'masochism' , and the
> > recommended cures, if any, and then give up asking all
> > these floppy ends of human guts if they've got any answer
> > to your challenges, because they haven't. It's not worth
> > asking a semi-literate human cloacum for a genuine
> > opinion, because you already know what you'll get. regards
> > Richard

> This semi-literate human cloacum would like to know why I
> am required to answer Marc's inept strawman concoctions?
> Rick Wagler

Because, AFAIK, you have nothing, my boy:
- you have no clue why our ancestors got so much fatter
than chimps,
- idem why they lost their fur,
- idem why they started sweating so much,
- etc. If you had, you had told us long ago, no? I thought
leading PAs such as Phillip Tobias & Chris Stringer now
agree with a waterrich past
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm & littoral
dispersal of Homo
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html but I'd like to
hear the opinion of the savanna theorists. I'm very much
interested in hearing what real paleo-anthropologists today
think of these matters... :-)

[richardpar]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message news:-
> 1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> > > and bipedalism to reduce
> exposure
> > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists think?
> > > or do they have other explanations today? Just wanted to
> > > know...
>
> > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never called
> > that by real paleoanthropologists
>
> 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please first
> try to read properly. I used "savanna theory/theorists".
> 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't know
> what you're talking about, my boy, please inform a bit,
> eg, http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> written by a very very real PA...
>
> ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in Africa
> > at the time bipedalism evolved.
>
> Ah?
>
> Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.)
> > environment. Your credibility might take an upward nudge
> > if you learned something about current paleoanthropology.
> > John Roth
>
> 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what unfortunately
> is still very much alive in PA: just-so stories like "we
> became fully bipedal and as intelligent as we are with
> all our cultural flexibility amid grasses, trees,
> herbivores and carnivores" are written this year, 2006...
> http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any more
> (good boy!), please tell us what alternative scenario you
> have. Just wanted to know what you have in mind... Care
> to tell us why IYO we lost of our fur, became bipedal,
> got a lot of fat underneath our skin, evolved sweating?
> Just curious. I'd like to learn.
> 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association with
> open forest? Please tell us.
>
> --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://u-
> sers.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html

As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive and
well, though now placed a little later, and transferred to
Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01 July 2006 Marek Kohn
discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks `An Asian Perspective on
Early Human Dispersal from Africa' ...
- PDF from Nature.

"Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between Africa
and Asia, and neither should we, he (Dennell) and Roebroeks
argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date from an era when
grasslands stretched from northern Africa to eastern Asia.
Other animals moved freely across this landscape, so why not
hominins? "If you were a herbivore that took grass seriously,"
Dennell remarks, "you could munch your way all across
south-west Asia to northern China." He and Roebroeks suggest
that we should re-imagine this vast transcontinental band of
grass as a zone throughout which our ancestors also roamed.
Dennell has dubbed it "Savannahstan".

Another beautiful bit of 'savannah thinking' comes from Larick
and Ciochon http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm regrettably,
the map they publish purporting to show Pleistocene vegetation
puts the classical East African sites in the middle of a very
big patch of rain forest.

Their connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
eruptions is very original indeed.

regards

Richard

[John Roth]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message news:-
> 1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> > > and bipedalism to reduce
> exposure
> > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists think?
> > > or do they have other explanations today? Just wanted to
> > > know...
>
> > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never called
> > that by real paleoanthropologists
>
> 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please first
> try to read properly. I used "savanna theory/theorists".
> 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't know
> what you're talking about, my boy, please inform a bit,
> eg, http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> written by a very very real PA...
>
> ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in Africa
> > at the time bipedalism evolved.
>
> Ah?
>
> Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.)
> > environment. Your credibility might take an upward nudge
> > if you learned something about current paleoanthropology.
> > John Roth
>
> 1) My boy,

Denigration. Remainder of

> I suggest you inform a bit on what unfortunately is still
> very much alive in PA: just-so stories like "we became fully
> bipedal and as intelligent as we are with all our cultural
> flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores and carnivores"
> are written this year, 2006...
> http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm

Whoever wrote that tripe is conflating bipedalism and
intelligence, which are separated by at least 4my in the
fossil record. My comment applied to the first, not to the
last.

> 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any more
> (good boy!), please tell us what alternative scenario you
> have. Just wanted to know what you have in mind... Care
> to tell us why IYO we lost of our fur, became bipedal,
> got a lot of fat underneath our skin, evolved sweating?
> Just curious. I'd like to learn.

Don't know. One thing I've learned is not to theorize in
advance of the data. I'm sure that, once someone comes up with
a scenario that works, I'll know about in within a year or so.

BTW - my comment was _only_ about the origins of bipedalism,
which seem to be in the range from the c/h split to maybe 4
mya. The existance of a savanah after that point is irrelevant
to my comment.

> 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association with
> open forest? Please tell us.

I'm not going to do your research for you.

John roth
>
> --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://u-
> sers.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html

[John Roth]

richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message new-
> > s:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> > > > and bipedalism to reduce
> > exposure
> > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > think? or do they have other explanations today? Just
> > > > wanted to know...
> >
> > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > called that by real paleoanthropologists
> >
> > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please first
> > try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > theory/theorists".
> > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > know what you're talking about, my boy, please inform a
> > bit, eg,
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm written
> > by a very very real PA...
> >
> > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in Africa
> > > at the time bipedalism evolved.
> >
> > Ah?
> >
> > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.)
> > > environment. Your credibility might take an upward nudge
> > > if you learned something about current
> > > paleoanthropology. John Roth
> >
> > 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what
> > unfortunately is still very much alive in PA: just-so
> > stories like "we became fully bipedal and as
> > intelligent as we are with all our cultural flexibility
> > amid grasses, trees, herbivores and carnivores" are
> > written this year, 2006...
> > http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any
> > more (good boy!), please tell us what alternative
> > scenario you have. Just wanted to know what you have in
> > mind... Care to tell us why IYO we lost of our fur,
> > became bipedal, got a lot of fat underneath our skin,
> > evolved sweating? Just curious. I'd like to learn.
> > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association with
> > open forest? Please tell us.
> >
> > --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http-
> > ://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evoluti-
> > on.html
>
>
> As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive and
> well, though now placed a little later, and transferred to
> Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01 July 2006 Marek Kohn
> discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks `An Asian Perspective on
> Early Human Dispersal from Africa' ...
> - PDF from Nature.
>
> "Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between
> Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he (Dennell) and
> Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date from
> an era when grasslands stretched from northern Africa to
> eastern Asia. Other animals moved freely across this
> landscape, so why not hominins? "If you were a herbivore
> that took grass seriously," Dennell remarks, "you could
> munch your way all across south-west Asia to northern
> China." He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine
> this vast transcontinental band of grass as a zone
> throughout which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has
> dubbed it "Savannahstan".
>
>
> Another beautiful bit of 'savannah thinking' comes from
> Larick and Ciochon http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm
> regrettably, the map they publish purporting to show
> Pleistocene vegetation puts the classical East African sites
> in the middle of a very big patch of rain forest.
>
> Their connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
> eruptions is very original indeed.
>
> regards
>
> Richard

As I commented in my reply to Marc, I was talking strictly
about the origins of bipedalism, which, according to the
fossil evidence, happened between the h/c split (5 to 10 mya
depending on your authority) and 4mya. I'm quite well aware
of the new work on the h.erectus migrations. It's a very
nice piece of work; I might almost say definitive, except
that I want to leave that evaluation until the inevitable
comments finish.

However, these happened about 1.7 mya ago and more recently,
so they're competely irrelevant for my comments about the
origin of bipedalism, which was basically complete by between
4mya and 3mya.

People can make really silly comments if they ignore the
changing landscape. That was Dart's original error: assuming
that the African environment he saw was the one that our
remote ancestors lived in. In 1925, he had an excuse, in
2006, we don't.

John Roth

[richardpar]

John Roth wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.-
> > > com...
> > >
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat
> > > > > removal, and bipedalism to reduce
> > > exposure
> > > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > > think? or do they have other explanations today?
> > > > > Just wanted to know...
> > >
> > > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > > called that by real paleoanthropologists
> > >
> > > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please
> > > first try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > > theory/theorists".
> > > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > > know what you're talking about, my boy, please inform
> > > a bit, eg,
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > > written by a very very real PA...
> > >
> > > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in
> > > > Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.
> > >
> > > Ah?
> > >
> > > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams,
> > > > etc.) environment. Your credibility might take an
> > > > upward nudge if you learned something about current
> > > > paleoanthropology. John Roth
> > >
> > > 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what
> > > unfortunately is still very much alive in PA: just-so
> > > stories like "we became fully bipedal and as
> > > intelligent as we are with all our cultural
> > > flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores and
> > > carnivores" are written this year, 2006...
> > > http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> > > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any
> > > more (good boy!), please tell us what alternative
> > > scenario you have. Just wanted to know what you have
> > > in mind... Care to tell us why IYO we lost of our
> > > fur, became bipedal, got a lot of fat underneath our
> > > skin, evolved sweating? Just curious. I'd like to
> > > learn.
> > > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association
> > > with open forest? Please tell us.
> > >
> > > --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http-
> > > ://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evoluti-
> > > on.html
> >
> >
> > As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive and
> > well, though now placed a little later, and transferred to
> > Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01 July 2006 Marek
> > Kohn discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks `An Asian
> > Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from Africa' ...
> > - PDF from Nature.
> >
> > "Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between
> > Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he (Dennell) and
> > Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date
> > from an era when grasslands stretched from northern Africa
> > to eastern Asia. Other animals moved freely across this
> > landscape, so why not hominins? "If you were a herbivore
> > that took grass seriously," Dennell remarks, "you could
> > munch your way all across south-west Asia to northern
> > China." He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine
> > this vast transcontinental band of grass as a zone
> > throughout which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has
> > dubbed it "Savannahstan".
> >
> >
> > Another beautiful bit of 'savannah thinking' comes from
> > Larick and Ciochon http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm
> > regrettably, the map they publish purporting to show
> > Pleistocene vegetation puts the classical East African
> > sites in the middle of a very big patch of rain forest.
> >
> > Their connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
> > eruptions is very original indeed.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Richard
>
> As I commented in my reply to Marc, I was talking strictly
> about the origins of bipedalism, which, according to the
> fossil evidence, happened between the h/c split (5 to 10 mya
> depending on your authority) and 4mya. I'm quite well aware
> of the new work on the h.erectus migrations. It's a very
> nice piece of work; I might almost say definitive, except
> that I want to leave that evaluation until the inevitable
> comments finish.
>
> However, these happened about 1.7 mya ago and more recently,
> so they're competely irrelevant for my comments about the
> origin of bipedalism, which was basically complete by
> between 4mya and 3mya.
>
> People can make really silly comments if they ignore the
> changing landscape. That was Dart's original error: assuming
> that the African environment he saw was the one that our
> remote ancestors lived in. In 1925, he had an excuse, in
> 2006, we don't.
>
> John Roth

I stand very happily corrected - none of the regular
shitslingers have turned out for this discussion, and I
wouldn't classify any of those who have so far joined an
almost unprecedentedly civilised discussion as a semi-literate
human cloacum.

Mind you, I wouldn't like to be called 'my boy' either.

So far. I hope I haven't spoken to soon.

But I would like to know why John Roth thinks that stuff
like Larick and Ciochon published in
http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm (extracts below) is
"a very nice piece of work" when it contains humourous
asides like:

"Homo erectus seems to have sought out unstable landscapes,
and this preference may explain this hominid's departure from
Africa before
1.8 million years ago (mya) and its arrival to extreme
Southeast Asia not long thereafter".

"With large body size, striding gait, carnivorous diet, and
elemental technology - and a relatively small brain - early
Homo apparently found advantage in the realm's linear
structure and the subchron's geotectonic instability".

"Central Java's soil wealth probably explains why Homo erectus
may have explored much of Sunda, but gravitated to this coast.
As a hunter, this hominid also took advantage of eruptions
that randomly cleared patches of rainforest. Such events
provided rich graze for the large mammals upon which the early
humans preyed"

These two go out to Java for their summer holidays and buy
bones from farmers - see: Farming in Java
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/Farming_Java.html, then come up
with sweeping statements like:

"early Homo apparently found advantage in the realm's linear
structure and the subchron's geotectonic instability"

FAWHL (Fall About With Helpless Laughter)

regards

Richard

[richardpar]

John Roth wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.-
> > > com...
> > >
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat
> > > > > removal, and bipedalism to reduce
> > > exposure
> > > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > > think? or do they have other explanations today?
> > > > > Just wanted to know...
> > >
> > > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > > called that by real paleoanthropologists
> > >
> > > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please
> > > first try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > > theory/theorists".
> > > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > > know what you're talking about, my boy, please inform
> > > a bit, eg,
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > > written by a very very real PA...
> > >
> > > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in
> > > > Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.
> > >
> > > Ah?
> > >
> > > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams,
> > > > etc.) environment. Your credibility might take an
> > > > upward nudge if you learned something about current
> > > > paleoanthropology. John Roth
> > >
> > > 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what
> > > unfortunately is still very much alive in PA: just-so
> > > stories like "we became fully bipedal and as
> > > intelligent as we are with all our cultural
> > > flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores and
> > > carnivores" are written this year, 2006...
> > > http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> > > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any
> > > more (good boy!), please tell us what alternative
> > > scenario you have. Just wanted to know what you have
> > > in mind... Care to tell us why IYO we lost of our
> > > fur, became bipedal, got a lot of fat underneath our
> > > skin, evolved sweating? Just curious. I'd like to
> > > learn.
> > > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association
> > > with open forest? Please tell us.
> > >
> > > --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http-
> > > ://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evoluti-
> > > on.html
> >
> >
> > As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive and
> > well, though now placed a little later, and transferred to
> > Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01 July 2006 Marek
> > Kohn discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks `An Asian
> > Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from Africa' ...
> > - PDF from Nature.
> >
> > "Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between
> > Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he (Dennell) and
> > Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date
> > from an era when grasslands stretched from northern Africa
> > to eastern Asia. Other animals moved freely across this
> > landscape, so why not hominins? "If you were a herbivore
> > that took grass seriously," Dennell remarks, "you could
> > munch your way all across south-west Asia to northern
> > China." He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine
> > this vast transcontinental band of grass as a zone
> > throughout which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has
> > dubbed it "Savannahstan".
> >
> >
> > Another beautiful bit of 'savannah thinking' comes from
> > Larick and Ciochon http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm
> > regrettably, the map they publish purporting to show
> > Pleistocene vegetation puts the classical East African
> > sites in the middle of a very big patch of rain forest.
> >
> > Their connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
> > eruptions is very original indeed.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Richard
>
> As I commented in my reply to Marc, I was talking strictly
> about the origins of bipedalism, which, according to the
> fossil evidence, happened between the h/c split (5 to 10 mya
> depending on your authority) and 4mya. I'm quite well aware
> of the new work on the h.erectus migrations. It's a very
> nice piece of work; I might almost say definitive, except
> that I want to leave that evaluation until the inevitable
> comments finish.
>
> However, these happened about 1.7 mya ago and more recently,
> so they're competely irrelevant for my comments about the
> origin of bipedalism, which was basically complete by
> between 4mya and 3mya.
>
> People can make really silly comments if they ignore the
> changing landscape. That was Dart's original error: assuming
> that the African environment he saw was the one that our
> remote ancestors lived in. In 1925, he had an excuse, in
> 2006, we don't.
>
> John Roth

The 'savannah story' still pervades paleoanthropology, and
it's not just restricted to 5Mya; it's such a strong influence
that it is used to justify theories about times 3 million
years later:

Robin Dennell has obviously been heavily infected with the
savannah bug, and I thought my previous quote from him was
just an aside to a journalist, but this actually appears in
his paper:

(An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa Vol
438|22/29 December 2005|doi:10.1038/nature04259)

"As noted earlier, Pliocene grasslands extended all the way
from west Africa to north China, and 'Savannahstan' might
prove a more useful spatial unit for modelling early hominin
adaptations and dispersals within them than simply an
undifferentiated 'Africa' or 'Asia'. For example, the African
hominins 1.9-1.7Myr ago at Koobi Fora (Kenya) and Ain Hanech
(Algeria), and their slightly later counterparts in Asia at
'Ubeidiya (Israel), and Majuangou (north China) were all
living in broadly comparable grassland environments, and it
makes sense to place them within the same frame of reference."

Seeing how Larick and Ciochon take a (very) broad brush to
show the 'Tethys Corridor' and the 'Tethys Realm' it might be
interesting to test this 'Savannahstan' idea.

Start from Dmanisi - climb over the Caucasus - skirt or cross
the Caspian Sea - cross the Kyzil Kum and Kara Kum deserts
(which may well have been savannah at some time) , head a bit
north to Lake Balkhash, or south through the Pamirs, and sneak
through the Tien Shan mountains to the Tarim Basin, and on to
the Gobi Desert - straight ahead is Beijing.

'Savannahstan' ??

Wonderful how academics who mostly sit in Sheffield or Iowa,
do (perhaps many) seasons' work in Pakistan or Java, and then
conceive such grandiose visions.

If the 'Savannah Theory' or the 'Savannah Scenario' was either
a straw man or has died off, why are learned scholars like
Dennell still invoking savannahs to try and help them along
with their own somewhat unorthodox theories ?

regards

Richard

[Spiznet]

richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> John Roth wrote:
> > richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroup-
> > > > s.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat
> > > > > > removal, and bipedalism to reduce
> > > > exposure
> > > > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > > > think? or do they have other explanations today?
> > > > > > Just wanted to know...
> > > >
> > > > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > > > called that by real paleoanthropologists
> > > >
> > > > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please
> > > > first try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > > > theory/theorists".
> > > > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > > > know what you're talking about, my boy, please
> > > > inform a bit, eg,
> > > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > > > written by a very very real PA...
> > > >
> > > > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in
> > > > > Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.
> > > >
> > > > Ah?
> > > >
> > > > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams,
> > > > > etc.) environment. Your credibility might take an
> > > > > upward nudge if you learned something about current
> > > > > paleoanthropology. John Roth
> > > >
> > > > 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what
> > > > unfortunately is still very much alive in PA:
> > > > just-so stories like "we became fully bipedal and
> > > > as intelligent as we are with all our cultural
> > > > flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores and
> > > > carnivores" are written this year, 2006... http://-
> > > > www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> > > > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any
> > > > more (good boy!), please tell us what alternative
> > > > scenario you have. Just wanted to know what you
> > > > have in mind... Care to tell us why IYO we lost of
> > > > our fur, became bipedal, got a lot of fat
> > > > underneath our skin, evolved sweating? Just
> > > > curious. I'd like to learn.
> > > > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association
> > > > with open forest? Please tell us.
> > > >
> > > > --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT ht-
> > > > tp://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evo-
> > > > lution.html
> > >
> > >
> > > As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive
> > > and well, though now placed a little later, and
> > > transferred to Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01
> > > July 2006 Marek Kohn discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks
> > > `An Asian Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from
> > > Africa' ...
> > > - PDF from Nature.
> > >
> > > "Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between
> > > Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he (Dennell) and
> > > Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date
> > > from an era when grasslands stretched from northern
> > > Africa to eastern Asia. Other animals moved freely
> > > across this landscape, so why not hominins? "If you were
> > > a herbivore that took grass seriously," Dennell remarks,
> > > "you could munch your way all across south-west Asia to
> > > northern China." He and Roebroeks suggest that we should
> > > re-imagine this vast transcontinental band of grass as a
> > > zone throughout which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell
> > > has dubbed it "Savannahstan".
> > >
> > >
> > > Another beautiful bit of 'savannah thinking' comes from
> > > Larick and Ciochon http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm
> > > regrettably, the map they publish purporting to show
> > > Pleistocene vegetation puts the classical East African
> > > sites in the middle of a very big patch of rain forest.
> > >
> > > Their connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
> > > eruptions is very original indeed.
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > Richard
> >
> > As I commented in my reply to Marc, I was talking strictly
> > about the origins of bipedalism, which, according to the
> > fossil evidence, happened between the h/c split (5 to 10
> > mya depending on your authority) and 4mya. I'm quite well
> > aware of the new work on the h.erectus migrations. It's a
> > very nice piece of work; I might almost say definitive,
> > except that I want to leave that evaluation until the
> > inevitable comments finish.
> >
> > However, these happened about 1.7 mya ago and more
> > recently, so they're competely irrelevant for my comments
> > about the origin of bipedalism, which was basically
> > complete by between 4mya and 3mya.
> >
> > People can make really silly comments if they ignore the
> > changing landscape. That was Dart's original error:
> > assuming that the African environment he saw was the one
> > that our remote ancestors lived in. In 1925, he had an
> > excuse, in 2006, we don't.
> >
> > John Roth
>
> The 'savannah story' still pervades paleoanthropology, and
> it's not just restricted to 5Mya; it's such a strong
> influence that it is used to justify theories about times 3
> million years later:
>
> Robin Dennell has obviously been heavily infected with the
> savannah bug, and I thought my previous quote from him was
> just an aside to a journalist, but this actually appears in
> his paper:
>
> (An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa
> Vol 438|22/29 December 2005|doi:10.1038/nature04259)
>
> "As noted earlier, Pliocene grasslands extended all the way
> from west Africa to north China, and 'Savannahstan' might
> prove a more useful spatial unit for modelling early hominin
> adaptations and dispersals within them than simply an
> undifferentiated 'Africa' or 'Asia'. For example, the
> African hominins 1.9-1.7Myr ago at Koobi Fora (Kenya) and
> Ain Hanech (Algeria), and their slightly later counterparts
> in Asia at 'Ubeidiya (Israel), and Majuangou (north China)
> were all living in broadly comparable grassland
> environments, and it makes sense to place them within the
> same frame of reference."
>
> Seeing how Larick and Ciochon take a (very) broad brush to
> show the 'Tethys Corridor' and the 'Tethys Realm' it might
> be interesting to test this 'Savannahstan' idea.
>
> Start from Dmanisi - climb over the Caucasus - skirt or
> cross the Caspian Sea - cross the Kyzil Kum and Kara Kum
> deserts (which may well have been savannah at some time) ,
> head a bit north to Lake Balkhash, or south through the
> Pamirs, and sneak through the Tien Shan mountains to the
> Tarim Basin, and on to the Gobi Desert - straight ahead is
> Beijing.
>
> 'Savannahstan' ??
>
> Wonderful how academics who mostly sit in Sheffield or Iowa,
> do (perhaps many) seasons' work in Pakistan or Java, and
> then conceive such grandiose visions.
>
> If the 'Savannah Theory' or the 'Savannah Scenario' was
> either a straw man or has died off, why are learned scholars
> like Dennell still invoking savannahs to try and help them
> along with their own somewhat unorthodox theories ?
>
> regards Richard

Here, let me explain it to you: it used to be thought that the
areas of human occupation were dry 5-7mya like current
climates in South African and in the Rift Valley.

This was used a base climate to use to begin to theorize the
reasons for hominid development, most importantly bipedalism.
For the most part, these human locales have been judged in the
past 100 years to have been much more akin to closed & open
woodland areas.

Of course sensible folks & anthropologists are not like the
AAT water-wingers, every problem does not have the same
solution. So bipedalism, increasing brain size, tool use,
migrations, etc, etc, etc, do not all have the same cause
throughout millions of years of history!!! Surprise!

So if some anthro guy wants to use the actual documented
spread of savannah at 2mya for his theory of migrations, ok,
thats a perfectly valid theory, as far as it goes. It is not
automatically thrown out due to the irrational and unthinking
reliance on WATER that is evidenced in your forums.

Hey, Marc, don't stop at hominid development, don't you
*really* think that, looking at it a certain way, that ALL
evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
by-products) and that is pretty much the solution to all
life's evolutionary mysteries?

-Spiznet

[richardpar]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> <richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:115402567-
> 5.156722.34090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "Central Java's soil wealth probably explains why Homo
> > erectus may have explored much of Sunda, but gravitated to
> > this coast. As a hunter, this hominid also took advantage
> > of eruptions that randomly cleared patches of rainforest.
> > Such events provided rich graze for the large mammals upon
> > which the early humans preyed"
> >
> > These two go out to Java for their summer holidays and buy
> > bones from farmers - see: Farming in Java
> > http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/Farming_Java.html, then come
> > up with sweeping statements like:
> >
> > "early Homo apparently found advantage in the realm's
> > linear structure and the subchron's geotectonic
> > instability"
> >
> > FAWHL (Fall About With Helpless Laughter)
>
> I don't see your point. Getting caught up in a volcanic
> eruption would be a nasty experience for some -- but it
> would have no effect on the population as a whole.
>

Paul, I didn't say that, but Larick and Ciochon did:

"Central Java's soil wealth probably explains why Homo erectus
may have explored much of Sunda, but gravitated to this coast.
As a hunter, this hominid also took advantage of eruptions
that randomly cleared patches of rainforest. Such events
provided rich graze for the large mammals upon which the early
humans preyed"

ie - they didn't get themselves caught up in volcanic
eruptions at all, they waited until a bit of new grass grew so
they could jump in and slaughter all the big game.

And they wandered around between Ain Hanech in North Africa,
Dmanisi in Georgia, and all along this 'geotectonic belt' -
the 'Tethys corridor' until they found just the right place -
Java - where occasional volcanic eruptions cleared the jungle
and gave them the same opportunity they'd had at Koobi Fora to
bag a buck.

Good thinking.

regards

Richard

[richardpar]

spiznet wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > John Roth wrote:
> > > richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in
> > > > > message news:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.g-
> > > > > ooglegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in
> > > > > > > savanna environments, necessitating sweating for
> > > > > > > heat removal, and bipedalism to reduce
> > > > > exposure
> > > > > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > > > > think? or do they have other explanations today?
> > > > > > > Just wanted to know...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was
> > > > > > never called that by real paleoanthropologists
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please
> > > > > first try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > > > > theory/theorists".
> > > > > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply
> > > > > don't know what you're talking about, my boy,
> > > > > please inform a bit, eg,
> > > > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > > > > written by a very very real PA...
> > > > >
> > > > > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > > > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in
> > > > > > Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah?
> > > > >
> > > > > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > > > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams,
> > > > > > etc.) environment. Your credibility might take an
> > > > > > upward nudge if you learned something about
> > > > > > current paleoanthropology. John Roth
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what
> > > > > unfortunately is still very much alive in PA:
> > > > > just-so stories like "we became fully bipedal and
> > > > > as intelligent as we are with all our cultural
> > > > > flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores and
> > > > > carnivores" are written this year, 2006... http:-
> > > > > //www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> > > > > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories
> > > > > any more (good boy!), please tell us what
> > > > > alternative scenario you have. Just wanted to
> > > > > know what you have in mind... Care to tell us why
> > > > > IYO we lost of our fur, became bipedal, got a lot
> > > > > of fat underneath our skin, evolved sweating?
> > > > > Just curious. I'd like to learn.
> > > > > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association
> > > > > with open forest? Please tell us.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
> > > > > http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human-
> > > > > _Evolution.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive
> > > > and well, though now placed a little later, and
> > > > transferred to Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01
> > > > July 2006 Marek Kohn discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks
> > > > `An Asian Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from
> > > > Africa' ...
> > > > - PDF from Nature.
> > > >
> > > > "Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between
> > > > Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he (Dennell)
> > > > and Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad
> > > > date from an era when grasslands stretched from
> > > > northern Africa to eastern Asia. Other animals moved
> > > > freely across this landscape, so why not hominins? "If
> > > > you were a herbivore that took grass seriously,"
> > > > Dennell remarks, "you could munch your way all across
> > > > south-west Asia to northern China." He and Roebroeks
> > > > suggest that we should re-imagine this vast
> > > > transcontinental band of grass as a zone throughout
> > > > which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has dubbed it
> > > > "Savannahstan".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Another beautiful bit of 'savannah thinking' comes
> > > > from Larick and Ciochon
> > > > http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm regrettably, the
> > > > map they publish purporting to show Pleistocene
> > > > vegetation puts the classical East African sites in
> > > > the middle of a very big patch of rain forest.
> > > >
> > > > Their connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
> > > > eruptions is very original indeed.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > >
> > > As I commented in my reply to Marc, I was talking
> > > strictly about the origins of bipedalism, which,
> > > according to the fossil evidence, happened between the
> > > h/c split (5 to 10 mya depending on your authority) and
> > > 4mya. I'm quite well aware of the new work on the
> > > h.erectus migrations. It's a very nice piece of work; I
> > > might almost say definitive, except that I want to leave
> > > that evaluation until the inevitable comments finish.
> > >
> > > However, these happened about 1.7 mya ago and more
> > > recently, so they're competely irrelevant for my
> > > comments about the origin of bipedalism, which was
> > > basically complete by between 4mya and 3mya.
> > >
> > > People can make really silly comments if they ignore the
> > > changing landscape. That was Dart's original error:
> > > assuming that the African environment he saw was the one
> > > that our remote ancestors lived in. In 1925, he had an
> > > excuse, in 2006, we don't.
> > >
> > > John Roth
> >
> > The 'savannah story' still pervades paleoanthropology, and
> > it's not just restricted to 5Mya; it's such a strong
> > influence that it is used to justify theories about times
> > 3 million years later:
> >
> > Robin Dennell has obviously been heavily infected with the
> > savannah bug, and I thought my previous quote from him was
> > just an aside to a journalist, but this actually appears
> > in his paper:
> >
> > (An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa
> > Vol 438|22/29 December 2005|doi:10.1038/nature04259)
> >
> > "As noted earlier, Pliocene grasslands extended all the
> > way from west Africa to north China, and 'Savannahstan'
> > might prove a more useful spatial unit for modelling early
> > hominin adaptations and dispersals within them than simply
> > an undifferentiated 'Africa' or 'Asia'. For example, the
> > African hominins 1.9-1.7Myr ago at Koobi Fora (Kenya) and
> > Ain Hanech (Algeria), and their slightly later
> > counterparts in Asia at 'Ubeidiya (Israel), and Majuangou
> > (north China) were all living in broadly comparable
> > grassland environments, and it makes sense to place them
> > within the same frame of reference."
> >
> > Seeing how Larick and Ciochon take a (very) broad brush to
> > show the 'Tethys Corridor' and the 'Tethys Realm' it might
> > be interesting to test this 'Savannahstan' idea.
> >
> > Start from Dmanisi - climb over the Caucasus - skirt or
> > cross the Caspian Sea - cross the Kyzil Kum and Kara Kum
> > deserts (which may well have been savannah at some time) ,
> > head a bit north to Lake Balkhash, or south through the
> > Pamirs, and sneak through the Tien Shan mountains to the
> > Tarim Basin, and on to the Gobi Desert - straight ahead is
> > Beijing.
> >
> > 'Savannahstan' ??
> >
> > Wonderful how academics who mostly sit in Sheffield or
> > Iowa, do (perhaps many) seasons' work in Pakistan or Java,
> > and then conceive such grandiose visions.
> >
> > If the 'Savannah Theory' or the 'Savannah Scenario' was
> > either a straw man or has died off, why are learned
> > scholars like Dennell still invoking savannahs to try and
> > help them along with their own somewhat unorthodox
> > theories ?
> >
> > regards Richard
>
> Here, let me explain it to you: it used to be thought that
> the areas of human occupation were dry 5-7mya like current
> climates in South African and in the Rift Valley.
>
> This was used a base climate to use to begin to theorize the
> reasons for hominid development, most importantly
> bipedalism. For the most part, these human locales have been
> judged in the past 100 years to have been much more akin to
> closed & open woodland areas.
>
> Of course sensible folks & anthropologists are not like the
> AAT water-wingers, every problem does not have the same
> solution. So bipedalism, increasing brain size, tool use,
> migrations, etc, etc, etc, do not all have the same cause
> throughout millions of years of history!!! Surprise!
>
> So if some anthro guy wants to use the actual documented
> spread of savannah at 2mya for his theory of migrations,
> ok, thats a perfectly valid theory, as far as it goes.
> It is not automatically thrown out due to the irrational
> and unthinking reliance on WATER that is evidenced in
> your forums.
>
> Hey, Marc, don't stop at hominid development, don't you
> *really* think that, looking at it a certain way, that ALL
> evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
> by-products) and that is pretty much the solution to all
> life's evolutionary mysteries?
>
> -Spiznet

Well, Spiznet, I've tried very hard to follow the logic of
your argument but got quite lost in the middle of it.

'For the most part, these human locales have been judged in
the past 100 years to have been much more akin to closed &
open woodland areas.'

- we seem to be taking an awful long time to realise that.
Dart only discovered Taung 80 years ago, and Leakey his
stuff only 40 years ago - why didn't they know that the
'Savannah' was long gone, replaced by 'closed & open
woodland areas' ?:

And what, exactly, does that mean? Closed? Open? Woodland?

'So if some anthro guy wants to use the actual documented
spread of savannah at 2mya for his theory of migrations, ok,
thats a perfectly valid theory, as far as it goes".

Is there any actual documented spread of savannah at 2mya? If
so, I would (very seriously) like to see it.

"Hey, Marc, don't stop at hominid development, don't you
*really* think that, looking at it a certain way, that ALL
evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
by-products) and that is pretty much the solution to all
life's evolutionary mysteries?"

Yes, of course, you're perfectly right on this point - "ALL
evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
by-products)" but in this forum we're only talking about the
last 2.5 seconds of the 24 hour clock analogy of the world's
history, so perhaps we should think of some other ideas.

regards Richard.

[Paul Crowl]

"John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
>> environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
>> bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still
>> what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
>> explanations today? Just wanted to know...
>>
>> --Marc Verhaegen
>> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never called
> that by real paleoanthropologists) died in the mid 90s when
> paleoclimate studies showed that there wasn't a savanna
> environment in Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.
> Current studies show a fairly strong association with an
> open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.) environment.
>
> Your credibility might take an upward nudge if you learned
> something about current paleoanthropology.

Be all that as it may, what is the current paleo-
anthropological thinking about
(a) Why did fat replaced fur?
(b) Why did human sweating evolve?
(c) Why bipedalism . . . ?

Marc won't tell us what the current AAH theories say -- it's
probably too embarrassing. Can standard PA do any better?

Paul.

[Marc Verha]

"John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:1154002991.574789.137060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> > > > and bipedalism to reduce
> > exposure
> > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > think? or do they have other explanations today? Just
> > > > wanted to know...

> > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > called that by
real
> > > paleoanthropologists

> > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please first
> > try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > theory/theorists".
> > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > know what you're talking about, my boy, please inform a
> > bit, eg,
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm written
> > by a very very
real
> > PA...

No answers. IYO, is Tobias a real PA, John?

> > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in Africa
> > > at the time bipedalism evolved.

> > Ah?

No answer.
1) To declare that there was no savanna in Africa when
bipedalism evolved is nonsense AFAIK. Apparently you can't
even give a ref. Are you a real PA, John?
2) You're making up your own facts AFAICS: the savanna theory
died much earlier, eg, 1987 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
Nature 325:305-306: Sinclair et al. (1) believe that human
bipedalism arose in scavenging hominid ancestors that had
to carry their children while following migrating savanna
ungulates but this seems highly improbable. There was no
empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by
hominid ancestors. Not only vultures, but aso canid, felid
and hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such
a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth
and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Moreover, the bipedal way of locomotion - whether fast of
slow - is inefficient and costly (2,3). Another argument
against the migrating hypothesis in particular and the
savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is
highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the
savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant.
Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but have
thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never
seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- and
sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands,
totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal
(6). We need much more water than other primates, and have
to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot
drink large quantities at a time (7-8). The fossils of our
hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in
water-rich environments. It is difficult to understand why
most anthropologists keep believing in the savanna theory
(possibly because it goes back to Darwin), or why so many
anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable
reasons for bipedalism, while they should know there are
much better explanations (9-11).

> > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.)
> > > environment. Your credibility might take an upward nudge
> > > if you learned something about current
> > > paleoanthropology. John Roth

> > 1) My boy,

> Denigration. Remainder of

People who speak about "real" PAs have a simplistic=childish
view of science. Wegener was no real geologist, but a
meteorologist. The people who thought he was wrong were all
very real geologists.

> > I suggest you inform a bit on what unfortunately is still
> > very much alive in PA: just-so stories like "we became
> > fully bipedal and as intelligent as we are with all our
> > cultural flexibility amid grasses,
trees,
> > herbivores and carnivores" are written this year, 2006...
> > http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm

> Whoever wrote that tripe is conflating bipedalism and
> intelligence, which are separated by at least 4my in the
> fossil record. My comment applied to the first, not to
> the last.

I'll try to correct some of your simplistic views here:
3) Intelligence is what is measured by IQ tests. It's totally
irrelevant in PA. Real PAs can talk about brain size, but
don't speak about "intelligence", John.
4) Our bipedalism, as everything in evolution, evolved in
different steps, of course. No real PA can say that
"bipedalism evolved at least 4 Ma":
5)) early hominids such as Lucy had rel.short legs as in apes,
and were parttime climbing (probably arms overhead);
6)) H.ergaster-erectus had a broader pelvis, more valgus
knees, longer femoral necks, denser bones, shorter tibiae
than we have, IOW, a slower, less cursorial gait;
7)) our modern locomotion (long legs, shorter & less
horizontal femoral necks, skeletal gracilisation,
basicranail flexion etc.) is probably not more than a few
100 ka old.

> > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any
> > more (good boy!), please tell us what alternative
> > scenario you have. Just wanted to know
what
> > you have in mind... Care to tell us why IYO we lost of our
> > fur, became bipedal, got a lot of fat underneath our skin,
> > evolved sweating? Just curious. I'd like to learn.

> Don't know.

IOW, you have nothing? :-)

One thing I've learned is not to theorize in advance
> of the data. I'm sure that, once someone comes up with a
> scenario that works, I'll know about in within a year or so.

Our scenario works perfectly, as you know since you have
"learned something about current paleoanthropology" (your
words). So no doubt you have read my recent papers with real
PAs as co-authors (P-F.Puech was the first to study afarensis
teeth electromicroscopically as you know since you have
learned something about PA, I hope you accept him as a "real
PA"? Stephen Munro has studied PA in Australia, I hope you
accept Australian PAs as real PAs?):
- with P-F.Puech 2000 "Hominid lifestyle and diet
reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
Hum.Evol.15:175-186
- with P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-217. Since you have
learned something about PA, you know our scenario: Homo
littoral diaspora: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places
as far as Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto
(Java) etc.: clearly these people got there along
shorelines, not over dry plains as some obsolete "real PAs"
still believe. Luckily, leading PAs such as Ph.Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm &
Chr.Stringer now agree with a waterside past & shoreline
dispersals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT But of course,
you knew this... :-)

> BTW - my comment was _only_ about the origins of
> bipedalism, which seem to be in the range from the c/h
> split to maybe 4 mya.

This is a very simplistic view, see below.

> The existance of a savanah after that point is irrelevant to
> my comment.

It's *totally* irrelevant, John: see my Nature letter above.

> > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association with
> > open forest?
Please tell us.

> I'm not going to do your research for you. John roth

Fine, John, but then, please don't make up your own "facts":
there is no strong association of Homo with open forest, as
you had known if you had learned something about PA.

--Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://use-
rs.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html

[Marc Verha]

"John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:1154004159.570594.299820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> > > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat
> > > > > removal, and bipedalism to reduce
> > > exposure
> > > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > > think? or do they have other explanations today?
> > > > > Just wanted to know...

> > > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > > called that by
real
> > > > paleoanthropologists

> > > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please
> > > first try to
read
> > > properly. I used "savanna theory/theorists".
> > > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > > know what
you're
> > > talking about, my boy, please inform a bit, eg,
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm written
> > > by a very very
real
> > > PA...

> > > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in
> > > > Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.

> > > Ah?

> > > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams,
> > > > etc.) environment. Your credibility might take an
> > > > upward nudge if you learned something about current
> > > > paleoanthropology. John Roth

> > > 1) My boy, I suggest you inform a bit on what
> > > unfortunately is still
very
> > > much alive in PA: just-so stories like "we became fully
> > > bipedal and as intelligent as we are with all our
> > > cultural flexibility amid grasses,
trees,
> > > herbivores and carnivores" are written this year,
> > > 2006...
> > > http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm
> > > 2) And even if you don't believe Wheeler's stories any
> > > more (good
boy!),
> > > please tell us what alternative scenario you have. Just
> > > wanted to
know what
> > > you have in mind... Care to tell us why IYO we lost of
> > > our fur,
became
> > > bipedal, got a lot of fat underneath our skin, evolved
> > > sweating? Just curious. I'd like to learn.
> > > 3) Which current studies IYO show strong association
> > > with open forest? Please tell us.

> > As Marc says, the savannah idea does indeed seem alive and
> > well, though now placed a little later, and transferred to
> > Asia: See:OUT OF ASIA New Scientist 01 July 2006 Marek
> > Kohn discussing: Dennell and Roebroeks `An Asian
> > Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from Africa' ...
> > - PDF from Nature. "Ancient hominins would not have
> > distinguished between Africa and Asia, and neither
> > should we, he (Dennell) and Roebroeks argue. Those
> > australopithecines in Chad date from an era when
> > grasslands stretched from northern Africa to eastern
> > Asia. Other animals moved freely across this landscape,
> > so why not hominins? "If you were a herbivore that took
> > grass seriously," Dennell remarks, "you could munch your
> > way all across south-west Asia to northern China." He
> > and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine this
> > vast transcontinental band of grass as a zone throughout
> > which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has dubbed it
> > "Savannahstan". Another beautiful bit of 'savannah
> > thinking' comes from Larick and Ciochon
> > http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm regrettably, the
> > map they publish purporting to show Pleistocene
> > vegetation puts the classical East African sites in the
> > middle of a very big patch of rain forest. Their
> > connection of H. erectus migration with volcanic
> > eruptions is very original indeed. regards Richard

Very interesting, but not so original: IIRC we discussed it at
AAT. AFAIK volcanic eruptions occur, eg, where there is
geological subduction: creation of volcanic island
archipelagoes, possible places where a seaside Homo could have
lived IOO.

> As I commented in my reply to Marc, I was talking strictly
> about the origins of bipedalism, which, according to the
> fossil evidence, happened between the h/c split (5 to 10 mya
> depending on your authority) and 4mya. I'm quite well aware
> of the new work on the h.erectus migrations. It's a very
> nice piece of work; I might almost say definitive, except
> that I want to leave that evaluation until the inevitable
> comments finish.

Well, unfortunately it's no nice piece of work, it's an
irrealistic revival of savanna ideas. Just-so stories without
any evidence.

> However, these happened about 1.7 mya ago and more recently,
> so they're competely irrelevant for my comments about the
> origin of bipedalism, which was basically complete by
> between 4mya and 3mya.

Please don't make up your own facts. 4-3 Ma, fossil hominids
had short legs as in apes, very valgus knees, arm-hanging
adaptations (eg, curved phalanges, upward oriented shoulder
joints) etc.

> People can make really silly comments if they ignore the
> changing landscape. That was Dart's original error: assuming
> that the African environment he saw was the one that our
> remote ancestors lived in. In 1925, he had an excuse, in
> 2006, we don't. John Roth

I fully agree, John. You have no excuse any more.

--Marc Verhaegen http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT http://use-
rs.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html

[Paul Crowl]

<richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154025675.156722.34090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> "Central Java's soil wealth probably explains why Homo
> erectus may have explored much of Sunda, but gravitated to
> this coast. As a hunter, this hominid also took advantage of
> eruptions that randomly cleared patches of rainforest. Such
> events provided rich graze for the large mammals upon which
> the early humans preyed"
>
> These two go out to Java for their summer holidays and buy
> bones from farmers - see: Farming in Java
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/Farming_Java.html, then come
> up with sweeping statements like:
>
> "early Homo apparently found advantage in the realm's linear
> structure and the subchron's geotectonic instability"
>
> FAWHL (Fall About With Helpless Laughter)

I don't see your point. Getting caught up in a volcanic
eruption would be a nasty experience for some -- but it would
have no effect on the population as a whole.

Paul.

[Rmacfarl]

richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> John Roth wrote:
...
> I stand very happily corrected - none of the regular
> shitslingers have turned out for this discussion,

Besides yourself, of course...

Ross Macfarlane

[Spiznet]

rmacfarl wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > John Roth wrote:
> ...
> > I stand very happily corrected - none of the regular
> > shitslingers have turned out for this discussion,
>
> Besides yourself, of course...
>
> Ross Macfarlane

Now is this to compare and contrast the "regular"
shitslingers with the "AAT" shitslingers? You know, everyone
happily left this newsgroup and stopped arguing the "finer
points" of AAT heretics several months ago, we just don't go
in for that anymore.

But you guys are determined to bring up the past, so go
write ahead.

[Rmacfarl]

richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> spiznet wrote:
...
>
> Well, Spiznet, I've tried very hard to follow the logic of
> your argument but got quite lost in the middle of it.
>
> 'For the most part, these human locales have been judged in
> the past 100 years to have been much more akin to closed &
> open woodland areas.'
>
> - we seem to be taking an awful long time to realise that.
> Dart only discovered Taung 80 years ago, and Leakey his
> stuff only 40 years ago - why didn't they know that the
> 'Savannah' was long gone, replaced by 'closed & open
> woodland areas' ?:
>
> And what, exactly, does that mean? Closed? Open? Woodland?

Why do you exclude open woodlands from the definition of
a savannah?

>
> 'So if some anthro guy wants to use the actual documented
> spread of savannah at 2mya for his theory of migrations, ok,
> thats a perfectly valid theory, as far as it goes".
>
> Is there any actual documented spread of savannah at 2mya?
> If so, I would (very seriously) like to see it.

Seriously? Try reading a book about the Pleistocene. What do
you think the impact of the Ice Ages' onset was, if not a
contraction of the Equatorial rainforests and the spread of
grassland? Why do you think biodiversity is greater in the
eastern & western margins of the African rainforests than in
the centre? Why do you think there are geographically isolated
populations of gorillas in the east & west? Why does the
fossil record show a worldwide increase in grass pollen over
trees, and a simultaneous increase in the number & variety of
grazers over browsers (e.g. Elizabeth Vrba's work on
wildebeest diversity in Africa).

>
> "Hey, Marc, don't stop at hominid development, don't you
> *really* think that, looking at it a certain way, that ALL
> evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
> by-products) and that is pretty much the solution to all
> life's evolutionary mysteries?"
>
> Yes, of course, you're perfectly right on this point - "ALL
> evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
> by-products)" but in this forum we're only talking about the
> last 2.5 seconds of the 24 hour clock analogy of the world's
> history, so perhaps we should think of some other ideas.

See, a key part of the problem with AAH theorists is this
determined adherence to an umbrella hypothesis that says it
was all due to water. Once upon a time the theory was that
humans evolved because brains grew, hence the attraction of
Piltdown & the dismissal of Taung, because people wanted the
brain to be important. But evolution doesn't work the way we
want it to. It's not neat and orderly. It's chaotic, and
contingent on things, that happen in places at times.

The reasons for bipedal apes evolving from apes were not the
same as those for Homo evolving. Those events were separated
by a greater span of time than the gap between erectus &
sapiens. Why would the same explanation apply? In the
Pleistocene, the world became colder, and dryer. This climatic
change influenced the evolution of hominids, just as it
influenced the evolution of wildebeests and whales...

Ross Macfarlane

[Day Brown]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> Be all that as it may, what is the current paleo-
> anthropological thinking about
> (a) Why did fat replaced fur?
> (b) Why did human sweating evolve?
> (c) Why bipedalism . . . ?

Without getting into the dogfights, a couple of sources seem
relevant. Kauffman, "The Origins of Order" explains how small
isolated populations evolve adapting to new conditions, while
large mass herds dont. Thus, the zebras, Wildebeest, antelope,
et al, have hardly changed in the last 5 million years.

And Stanley, "Children of the Ice Age" outlines how the band
of Savannah shrank between the forest and the desert, even
breaking into discrete areas of grassland, ie, islands of
isolation such as Kauffman writes about that facilitate
evolution.

Ergo, the hominids didnt evolve on the Savannah, but on
various of these areas, moving in and out of islands of forest
and the grassland which surrounded them.

The simplest route is to follow the rivers. During droughts,
the water holes would have had predator kills, which would
have had circles of vultures in the sky over them, which the
hominids would have seen, and *ran* fast as they could to get
there before everything was eaten. By having a shoulder joint
that could throw river rocks and carrying wood staves, they
could easily drive off the predators that made the kill.

During the wet season, the body fat would permit them to wade
or swim across the rivers without muscles cramping. But during
the dry season, the ability to sweat made long distance
running possible. And in any season, the wood staves would be
useful, while they wait for circles of vultures to form, to
dig clams or kill fish in the shallows. And thus get the Fatty
acid Omega 3 needed for superior mental development.

So- the other thing that is going on with the hominids, is
that they are adapting new techniques to survive in a wider
*variety* of habitats.

[Marc Verha]

<richardparker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154025675.156722.34090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> Mind you, I wouldn't like to be called 'my boy' either.

I find these savanna confabulations so terribly ridiculous
(humans are anatomically & physiologically the opposite of
savanna mammals) that I can only feel sorry for people who
believe such nonsense. "My boy" means that I don't take you
serious when you're expressing such ideas. If you feel
offended by it, John, I apologize. Savanna believers (but not
you AFAIK) have called me worse things.

> So far. I hope I haven't spoken to soon. But I would like to
> know why John Roth thinks that stuff like Larick and Ciochon
> published in http://www.athenapub.com/13sunda.htm (extracts
> below) is "a very nice piece of work" when it contains
> humourous asides like: "Homo erectus seems to have sought
> out unstable landscapes, and this preference may explain
> this hominid's departure from Africa before
> 1.8 million years ago (mya) and its arrival to extreme
> Southeast Asia not long thereafter".

Yes, sad. We simply don't know when He arrived there: absence
of evidence is no evidence of absence. The only thing we know
is that the retroviral data could mean that our ancestors
lived in S.Asia between 4 & 3 Ma: CT Yohn
cs.2005 "Lineage-Spec.Expansions of Retroviral Insertions
within the Genomes of Afr.Gr.Apes but Not Humans &
Orangutans" PLoS Biol.3:1-1: "Comparison of human &
other primate genomes provides evidence for a retroviral
infection that bombarded the genomes of chimps &
gorillas 3-4 Ma."

> "With large body size, striding gait, carnivorous diet, and
> elemental technology - and a relatively small brain - early
> Homo apparently found advantage in the realm's linear
> structure and the subchron's geotectonic instability".

:-D

> "Central Java's soil wealth probably explains why Homo
> erectus may have explored much of Sunda, but gravitated to
> this coast. As a hunter, this hominid also took advantage of
> eruptions that randomly cleared patches of rainforest. Such
> events provided rich graze for the large mammals upon which
> the early humans preyed"

Incredible.

> These two go out to Java for their summer holidays and buy
> bones from farmers - see: Farming in Java
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/Farming_Java.html, then come
> up with sweeping statements like: "early Homo apparently
> found advantage in the realm's linear structure and the
> subchron's geotectonic instability" FAWHL (Fall About With
> Helpless Laughter) regards Richard

--Marc

[Rmacfarl]

spiznet wrote:
> rmacfarl wrote:
> > richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > John Roth wrote:
> > ...
> > > I stand very happily corrected - none of the regular
> > > shitslingers have turned out for this discussion,
> >
> > Besides yourself, of course...
> >
> > Ross Macfarlane
>
> Now is this to compare and contrast the "regular"
> shitslingers with the "AAT" shitslingers? You know, everyone
> happily left this newsgroup and stopped arguing the "finer
> points" of AAT heretics several months ago, we just don't go
> in for that anymore.
>
> But you guys are determined to bring up the past, so go
> write ahead.

Ah, you're just jealous that Richie doesn't rate you as one of
the shitslingers... :-)

[Spiznet]

rmacfarl wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > spiznet wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Well, Spiznet, I've tried very hard to follow the logic of
> > your argument but got quite lost in the middle of it.
> >
> > 'For the most part, these human locales have been judged
> > in the past 100 years to have been much more akin to
> > closed & open woodland areas.'
> >
> > 'So if some anthro guy wants to use the actual documented
> > spread of savannah at 2mya for his theory of migrations,
> > ok, thats a perfectly valid theory, as far as it goes".
> >
> > Is there any actual documented spread of savannah at 2mya?
> > If so, I would (very seriously) like to see it.
>
> Seriously? Try reading a book about the Pleistocene. What do
> you think the impact of the Ice Ages' onset was, if not a
> contraction of the Equatorial rainforests and the spread of
> grassland? Why do you think biodiversity is greater in the
> eastern & western margins of the African rainforests than in
> the centre? Why do you think there are geographically
> isolated populations of gorillas in the east & west? Why
> does the fossil record show a worldwide increase in grass
> pollen over trees, and a simultaneous increase in the number
> & variety of grazers over browsers (e.g. Elizabeth Vrba's
> work on wildebeest diversity in Africa).
>
> >
> > "Hey, Marc, don't stop at hominid development, don't you
> > *really* think that, looking at it a certain way, that ALL
> > evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
> > by-products) and that is pretty much the solution to all
> > life's evolutionary mysteries?"
> >
> > Yes, of course, you're perfectly right on this point -
> > "ALL evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or
> > water by-products)" but in this forum we're only talking
> > about the last 2.5 seconds of the 24 hour clock analogy of
> > the world's history, so perhaps we should think of some
> > other ideas.
>
> See, a key part of the problem with AAH theorists is this
> determined adherence to an umbrella hypothesis that says it
> was all due to water. Once upon a time the theory was that
> humans evolved because brains grew, hence the attraction of
> Piltdown & the dismissal of Taung, because people wanted the
> brain to be important. But evolution doesn't work the way we
> want it to. It's not neat and orderly. It's chaotic, and
> contingent on things, that happen in places at times.
>
> The reasons for bipedal apes evolving from apes were not the
> same as those for Homo evolving. Those events were separated
> by a greater span of time than the gap between erectus &
> sapiens. Why would the same explanation apply? In the
> Pleistocene, the world became colder, and dryer. This
> climatic change influenced the evolution of hominids, just
> as it influenced the evolution of wildebeests and whales...
>
> Ross Macfarlane

Well stated, Ross!!

[Spiznet]

I heard that lions were new, within the last 500k...

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message new-
> s:1154045514.163821.102040@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > See, a key part of the problem with AAH theorists is this
> > determined adherence to an umbrella hypothesis that says
> > it was all due to water.
>
> At least they are seeking some kind of hypothesis.
>
> > Once upon a time the theory was that humans evolved
> > because brains grew, hence the attraction of Piltdown &
> > the dismissal of Taung, because people wanted the brain to
> > be important. But evolution doesn't work the way we want
> > it to. It's not neat and orderly. It's chaotic, and
> > contingent on things, that happen in places at times.
>
> The problem is certainly difficult, but that fact, and the
> further one that people have gone wrong before, is no reason
> for not making an effort.
>
> > The reasons for bipedal apes evolving from apes
>
> About which you haven't the first clue.
>
> > were not the same as those for Homo evolving.
>
> About which you also haven't a clue.
>
> So you have no basis (other than faith) for making the
> statement. Or it can be regarded as a tautology: the reasons
> for the evolution of birds were not the same as those for
> the evolution of gannets.
>
> > Those events were separated by a greater span of time than
> > the gap between erectus & sapiens. Why would the same
> > explanation apply?
>
> I accept that you have a point here, in the sheer
> absurdity of some of Marc's claims: some contact with
> water 'did it all'.
>
> > In the Pleistocene, the world became colder, and dryer.
> > This climatic change influenced the evolution of hominids,
> > just as it influenced the evolution of wildebeests and
> > whales...
>
> Nope. This is standard PA crap. List the major mammalian
> taxa. In how many did the climatic change in the Pleistocene
> bring about substantial morphological evolution? Bears?
> Pigs? Elephants? Tree-living apes? Gibbons? Try it with
> other orders: birds, reptiles, insects . . . .
>
> You will find that the score is -- remarkably -- a grand
> total of ONE. Guess which species that is . . .?
>
>
> Paul.

[richardpar]

rmacfarl wrote:
> richardparker01@yahoo.com wrote:
> > spiznet wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Well, Spiznet, I've tried very hard to follow the logic of
> > your argument but got quite lost in the middle of it.
> >
> > 'For the most part, these human locales have been judged
> > in the past 100 years to have been much more akin to
> > closed & open woodland areas.'
> >
> > - we seem to be taking an awful long time to realise
> > that. Dart only discovered Taung 80 years ago, and
> > Leakey his stuff only 40 years ago - why didn't they
> > know that the 'Savannah' was long gone, replaced by
> > 'closed & open woodland areas' ?:
> >
> > And what, exactly, does that mean? Closed? Open? Woodland?
>
> Why do you exclude open woodlands from the definition of a
> savannah?
>
> >
> > 'So if some anthro guy wants to use the actual documented
> > spread of savannah at 2mya for his theory of migrations,
> > ok, thats a perfectly valid theory, as far as it goes".
> >
> > Is there any actual documented spread of savannah at 2mya?
> > If so, I would (very seriously) like to see it.
>
> Seriously? Try reading a book about the Pleistocene. What do
> you think the impact of the Ice Ages' onset was, if not a
> contraction of the Equatorial rainforests and the spread of
> grassland? Why do you think biodiversity is greater in the
> eastern & western margins of the African rainforests than in
> the centre? Why do you think there are geographically
> isolated populations of gorillas in the east & west? Why
> does the fossil record show a worldwide increase in grass
> pollen over trees, and a simultaneous increase in the number
> & variety of grazers over browsers (e.g. Elizabeth Vrba's
> work on wildebeest diversity in Africa).
>
Been there, done that. Seen the theories like 'East Side, West
Side', and so on and not been at all surprised when they've
been upset and so on... and on... and on.

Yes, there must have been "the Ice Ages' onset" sometime, but
why should that (only the first of well over a dozen
alternating cycles) have been the climate 'prime cause' for
all that happened over the next million year period? Or the
one after that?

Where is the precise documented evidence of a spread of
savannah at 2Mya? As the Pleistocene didn't happen for another
400,000 years or so, I'm not much concerned with it in the
context of this question.

As for the rest of your rhetorical questions, I'd lump them
together with all the others that have been miraculously
answered by 'Ah Yes! Climate, of course!"

And since you've brought up the subject, yes, I would consider
you one of the 'regular shit-slingers' but since you're being
relatively docile, polite, well-mannered, and displaying some
evidence of conscious thought, I'll just hope you stay that
way - my boy.

> >
> > "Hey, Marc, don't stop at hominid development, don't you
> > *really* think that, looking at it a certain way, that ALL
> > evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or water
> > by-products) and that is pretty much the solution to all
> > life's evolutionary mysteries?"
> >
> > Yes, of course, you're perfectly right on this point -
> > "ALL evolution of ALL creatures was caused by water (or
> > water by-products)" but in this forum we're only talking
> > about the last 2.5 seconds of the 24 hour clock analogy of
> > the world's history, so perhaps we should think of some
> > other ideas.
>
> See, a key part of the problem with AAH theorists is this
> determined adherence to an umbrella hypothesis that says it
> was all due to water. Once upon a time the theory was that
> humans evolved because brains grew, hence the attraction of
> Piltdown & the dismissal of Taung, because people wanted the
> brain to be important.

But evolution doesn't
> work the way we want it to. It's not neat and orderly.
> It's chaotic, and contingent on things, that happen in
> places at times.

Good thinking (or, at least, evidence of some thinking).
>
> The reasons for bipedal apes evolving from apes were not the
> same as those for Homo evolving. Those events were separated
> by a greater span of time than the gap between erectus &
> sapiens. Why would the same explanation apply? In the
> Pleistocene, the world became colder, and dryer. This
> climatic change influenced the evolution of hominids, just
> as it influenced the evolution of wildebeests and whales...

The Pleistocene began, and Homo erectus apparently stayed just
about the same for another million years. Why?

regards

Richard

[Paul Crowl]

"rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:1154045514.163821.102040@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> See, a key part of the problem with AAH theorists is this
> determined adherence to an umbrella hypothesis that says it
> was all due to water.

At least they are seeking some kind of hypothesis.

> Once upon a time the theory was that humans evolved because
> brains grew, hence the attraction of Piltdown & the
> dismissal of Taung, because people wanted the brain to be
> important. But evolution doesn't work the way we want it to.
> It's not neat and orderly. It's chaotic, and contingent on
> things, that happen in places at times.

The problem is certainly difficult, but that fact, and the
further one that people have gone wrong before, is no reason
for not making an effort.

> The reasons for bipedal apes evolving from apes

About which you haven't the first clue.

> were not the same as those for Homo evolving.

About which you also haven't a clue.

So you have no basis (other than faith) for making the
statement. Or it can be regarded as a tautology: the reasons
for the evolution of birds were not the same as those for the
evolution of gannets.

> Those events were separated by a greater span of time than
> the gap between erectus & sapiens. Why would the same
> explanation apply?

I accept that you have a point here, in the sheer absurdity of
some of Marc's claims: some contact with water 'did it all'.

> In the Pleistocene, the world became colder, and dryer. This
> climatic change influenced the evolution of hominids, just
> as it influenced the evolution of wildebeests and whales...

Nope. This is standard PA crap. List the major mammalian taxa.
In how many did the climatic change in the Pleistocene bring
about substantial morphological evolution? Bears? Pigs?
Elephants? Tree-living apes? Gibbons? Try it with other
orders: birds, reptiles, insects . . . .

You will find that the score is -- remarkably -- a grand total
of ONE. Guess which species that is . . .?

Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

John Roth wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal, and
> > bipedalism to reduce exposure to the sun. Is this still
> > what savanna theorists think? or do they have other
> > explanations today? Just wanted to know...
> >
> > --Marc Verhaegen
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never called
> that by real paleoanthropologists) died in the mid 90s when
> paleoclimate studies showed that there wasn't a savanna
> environment in Africa at the time bipedalism evolved.
> Current studies show a fairly strong association with an
> open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.) environment.
>
> Your credibility might take an upward nudge if you learned
> something about current paleoanthropology.

Savanna is just a general term. Only mental retards waste much
time arguing about wether it was a "savanna" or not.

What's important is that starting about 8 mya the climate
shifted to one that has a distinct dry season. The forest
habitat persisted at locations that had water available year
round, like lakes rivers, etc. It was wetter than it is not
but it still had a severe dry season.

[Jim McGinn]

Day Brown wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > Be all that as it may, what is the current paleo-
> > anthropological thinking about
> > (a) Why did fat replaced fur?
> > (b) Why did human sweating evolve?
> > (c) Why bipedalism . . . ?
>
> Without getting into the dogfights, a couple of sources seem
> relevant. Kauffman, "The Origins of Order" explains how
> small isolated populations evolve adapting to new
> conditions, while large mass herds dont. Thus, the zebras,
> Wildebeest, antelope, et al, have hardly changed in the last
> 5 million years.
>
> And Stanley, "Children of the Ice Age" outlines how the band
> of Savannah shrank between the forest and the desert, even
> breaking into discrete areas of grassland, ie, islands of
> isolation such as Kauffman writes about that facilitate
> evolution.
>
> Ergo, the hominids didnt evolve on the Savannah, but on
> various of these areas, moving in and out of islands of
> forest and the grassland which surrounded them.

>
> The simplest route is to follow the rivers. During droughts,
> the water holes would have had predator kills, which would
> have had circles of vultures in the sky over them,

You're not making a lot of sense. Why do you have them
moving/migrating? These chimps (remember the original hominids
were chimps) would have been defenseless against larger
predators when away from trees.

which the hominids would have seen, and
> *ran* fast as they could to get there before everything was
> eaten. By having a shoulder joint that could throw river
> rocks and carrying wood staves, they could easily drive off
> the predators that made the kill.

Easily drive off predators? Are you nutz?

>
> During the wet season, the body fat would permit them to
> wade or swim across the rivers without muscles cramping.

Whackoism. Why in the world would chimps begin swimming?

But during the dry season,
> the ability to sweat made long distance running possible.

Long distance running? Ridiculous. Hominids are communal,
non-migratory, creatures.

And in any
> season, the wood staves would be useful, while they wait for
> circles of vultures to form, to dig clams or kill fish in
> the shallows. And thus get the Fatty acid Omega 3 needed for
> superior mental development.

More Omega 3 nonsense.

>
> So- the other thing that is going on with the hominids, is
> that they are adapting new techniques to survive in a wider
> *variety* of habitats.

How is this possible before they evolved cultural abilities.

[Jim McGinn]

John Roth wrote:
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > "John Roth" <JohnRoth1@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message new-
> > s:1153942598.841923.168220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > Fat replaced fur for thermo-insulation in savanna
> > > > environments, necessitating sweating for heat removal,
> > > > and bipedalism to reduce
> > exposure
> > > > to the sun. Is this still what savanna theorists
> > > > think? or do they have other explanations today? Just
> > > > wanted to know...
> >
> > > Let's see. The "savannah scenario" (which was never
> > > called that by real paleoanthropologists
> >
> > 1) So? Did I say so or did I use these terms? Please first
> > try to read properly. I used "savanna
> > theory/theorists".
> > 2) Real PAs did use "savanna theory". You simply don't
> > know what you're talking about, my boy, please inform a
> > bit, eg,
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm written
> > by a very very real PA...
> >
> > ) died in the mid 90s when paleoclimate studies
> > > showed that there wasn't a savanna environment in Africa
> > > at the time bipedalism evolved.
> >
> > Ah?
> >
> > Current studies show a fairly strong association
> > > with an open forest (woodlands, meadows, streams, etc.)
> > > environment. Your credibility might take an upward nudge
> > > if you learned something about current
> > > paleoanthropology. John Roth
> >
> > 1) My boy,
>
> Denigration. Remainder of
>
> > I suggest you inform a bit on what unfortunately is still
> > very much alive in PA: just-so stories like "we became
> > fully bipedal and as intelligent as we are with all our
> > cultural flexibility amid grasses, trees, herbivores and
> > carnivores" are written this year, 2006...
> > http://www.palarch.nl/Non_scientific/bookreview.htm