Q for Lee O, desert running

[Chapstick]

"Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert. Proof is
in the pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative data
tells you." --Lee, Sun, Sep-11-05, 06:38
http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-263723.html

Hello Lee et. al.,

Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can either
animal (human or horse) run for any length on the desert?

TIA, chap

[Lee Olsen]

Chapstick wrote:
> "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert. Proof
> is in the pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative
> data tells you." --Lee, Sun, Sep-11-05, 06:38
> http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-263723.html
>
> Hello Lee et. al.,
>
> Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can
> either animal (human or horse) run for any length on
> the desert?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1-
804830.stm

Even better I think...

mclark found this one http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
December 2006-January 2007 Click on 'samplings' "And the
hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or
mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done
right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so effective
that it may have helped select for the excellent
thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides
that we all possess."

>
> TIA, chap

[Lee Olsen]

Chapstick wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> 169099023.910873.286760@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > Chapstick wrote:
> >> "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert.
> >> Proof is in the pudding, no matter what your
> >> flawed-comparative data tells you." --Lee, Sun,
> >> Sep-11-05, 06:38 http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/inde-
> >> x.php/t-263723.html
> >>
> >> Hello Lee et. al.,
> >>
> >> Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can
> >> either animal (human or horse) run for any length on the
> >> desert?
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/-
> > 1804830.stm
> >
> > Even better I think...
> >
> > mclark found this one http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
> > December 2006-January 2007 Click on 'samplings' "And the
> > hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
> > following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or
> > mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But
> > done right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so
> > effective that it may have helped select for the excellent
> > thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides
> > that we all possess."
> >
> >
>
> The entire piece from mclark's link follows... thank you...
> meanwhile, if it (persistence hunting) is better than the
> bow and arrow, how come we invented (evolved) the bow and
> arrow? <grin> Of course, we DID develop that tool,

Maybe it was a couch potato who needed to invent the bow and
arrow in the first place :-)

Getting back to this point made in the article: "But done
right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so effective
that it may have helped select for the excellent
thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides
that we all possess."

http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and ran
with better mechanics than we do today. The mechanics of his
femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are superior to
those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that
efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children
with larger brains."

As more and more innovations came along, the less physical we
needed to be, a feedback loop. Even though we have teeth, we
invented the pressure cooker anyway. One anthropologist
quipped that if the rate of tooth reduction continues at the
present rate, in another 50,000 years humans probably won't
have teeth at all.

> and many others, so obviously something was to an advantage.
> Perhaps the "terrain" wasn't perfect in very many places.

I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in
some places, but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice
in the matter (perfect terrain or not). They did not have the
brain power to invent the bow and arrow or pressure cooker,
hence early Homo's better running abilities were needed and
selected for.

> -chap

[Rich Travs]

Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> Chapstick wrote:
> > "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert. Proof
> > is in the pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative
> > data tells you." --Lee, Sun, Sep-11-05, 06:38 http://foru-
> > m.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-263723.html
> >
> > Hello Lee et. al.,
> >
> > Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can
> > either animal (human or horse) run for any length on the
> > desert?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/18-
> 04830.stm
>
> Even better I think...
>
> mclark found this one http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/

Direct link

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.natur-
alhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html

> December 2006-January 2007 Click on 'samplings' "And the
> hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
> following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or
> mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done
> right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so effective
> that it may have helped select for the excellent
> thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides
> that we all possess."
>
> >
> > TIA, chap

[Chapstick]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169137014.222756.251740@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chapstick wrote:
>> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:-
>> 1169099023.910873.286760@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> > Chapstick wrote:
>> >> "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert.
>> >> Proof is in the pudding, no matter what your
>> >> flawed-comparative data tells you." --Lee, Sun,
>> >> Sep-11-05, 06:38 http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/ind-
>> >> ex.php/t-263723.html
>> >>
>> >> Hello Lee et. al.,
>> >>
>> >> Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can
>> >> either animal (human or horse) run for any length on the
>> >> desert?
>> >
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000-
>> > /1804830.stm
>> >
>> > Even better I think...
>> >
>> > mclark found this one http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
>> > December 2006-January 2007 Click on 'samplings' "And the
>> > hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding and
>> > following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or
>> > mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But
>> > done right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so
>> > effective that it may have helped select for the
>> > excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and
>> > long strides that we all possess."
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The entire piece from mclark's link follows... thank you...
>> meanwhile, if it (persistence hunting) is better than the
>> bow and arrow, how come we invented (evolved) the bow and
>> arrow? <grin> Of course, we DID develop that tool,
>
> Maybe it was a couch potato who needed to invent the bow and
> arrow in the first place :-)
>
> Getting back to this point made in the article: "But done
> right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so effective
> that it may have helped select for the excellent
> thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides
> that we all possess."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and
> ran with better mechanics than we do today. The mechanics of
> his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are superior
> to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that
> efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children
> with larger brains."
>
> As more and more innovations came along, the less physical
> we needed to be, a feedback loop. Even though we have teeth,
> we invented the pressure cooker anyway. One anthropologist
> quipped that if the rate of tooth reduction continues at the
> present rate, in another 50,000 years humans probably won't
> have teeth at all.

I agree with the concept that various pressures "caused" our
various adaptions as time went along. (and, although it is off
topic for this thread, I continue to speculate about sexual
selection... if it exists and the rapidity with which it can
bring about changes.... and how that alone might explain some
of the hss features.) So, at one time, running down prey would
have been selected for, and at another, larger female
pelvises, and eventually, a more-premature birth (more
helpless infant), etc. I do wonder how much "we" (meaning the
people that post here on sap, and the rest of humanity that
are concerned about questions of evolution) can depend on odd
ball results from something as spectacular as a man beating a
horse on a foot race thru the desert. (and, btw, i read
carefully thru the part about the human taking advantage of
the horse's rule-imposed water breaks) (it is also assumed
that neither horse nor man could cross the desert without
sufficient water....implying that if this concept applies to
earliest homo, then he/she would have to have invented a water
carrying technique). If we accept this result... outrunning a
horse on the desert, then we might have to allow Marc to use
the pearl divers, with their ability to dive to some 125
meters (?) as the norm for humans. Or, that mankind may have
evolved in outer space, since we have been to the moon. (and,
perhaps in our future, some man or woman will survive a period
of time with a punctured spacesuit in zero-g and zero-oxygen.)
<grin> We're all aliens! bring on the Nasca Lines... <grin> To
summarize what I am trying to think... I am interested in a
sort of coherent, complex & dynamic, timeline of human
development. I think we all want that. How did we become this
thinking being? and not just another chimp? Does the chimp
"think?" and etc. --chap

>
>
>> and many others, so obviously something was to an
>> advantage. Perhaps the "terrain" wasn't perfect in very
>> many places.
>
> I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in
> some places, but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice
> in the matter (perfect terrain or not). They did not have
> the brain power to invent the bow and arrow or pressure
> cooker, hence early Homo's better running abilities were
> needed and selected for.
>
>
>
>> -chap

[claudiusde]

pete wrote:

> Someone said "all progress depends on the lazy man". You
> look at the animal and you first think OK, a day's running
> and I'll have'im. The next immediate thought for Hs should
> typically be boy, I wish there was an easier way to do
> this... Also, consider that effective running down of a herd
> animal requires distinguishing it from others. It is
> interesting that many such animals are nearly identical -
> this may be a selective response to such hunting techniques
> by our ancestors or other predators. At any rate, it is
> reasonable to suppose that fairly early on in the game it
> would occur to the runners that marking the prey animal
> would be a useful thing to do; perhaps using distinctive
> coloured material, like a tossed clod of red ochre or some
> such. It is possible that the first wooden projectiles were
> not intended to kill, but to serve as marking darts.
>
> Now, consider that what I've described does require a fairly
> sophisticated mental process, while simply running after an
> animal could be accomplished by a much simpler brain. There
> is thus the latitude for cursorial chase hunting to be part
> of the survival arsenal of a long stretch of our ancestral
> species, likely back to the first He.

If this behavior, as you state, "does require a fairly
sophisticated mental process," then it can't be used to
describe the selective origins of hominid intelligence. You do
realize this, don't you?

Were they able to outrun lion also? Or did they practice some
form of stealth running as they were chasing down their prey
over long distances that essentially allowed them to run
through the fields and the bush invisible to lion?

Do you envision A'pith as typically, or even occasionally,
participating in this behavior?

Can you explain to us the selective origins of this behavior?
More specifically what, IYO, are the selective origins of the
intelligence that, supposedly, enabled them to have made the
realization that, "marking the prey animal would be a useful
thing to do?" Did they just suddenly get smart? Poof: humans
got smart. No explanation required. Is that it?

[Lee Olsen]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> 169137014.222756.251740@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ Click on 'samplings'
> >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
> >> > finding and following the quarry every time it bolts
> >> > out of sight or mingles with a herd is no easy
> >> > task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
> >> > persistence hunting is so effective that it may have
> >> > helped select for the excellent thermoregulatory
> >> > system, bipedal posture, and long strides that we all
> >> > possess."
>
> This is unbelievably ignorant. So it is no surprise at all
> that Olsen agrees with it. The number of logical mistakes
> both in this one short paragraph (and in the rest of the
> article) must each come close to the record for PA -- and
> that's a standard hard to achieve.
>

<snip rantings that modern humans can't run down animals>

ROTFL. Crowley is going to lecture the group today on
ingnorance and logic??? Here is a short list of his logic
in action, which amount to nothing more than a jihad
against science.

1) chimps can't dig,
2) rocks turn to dust on an ocean beach in a matter of
months,
3) that nothing grows in permafrost,
4) that Neandertals didn't hunt,
5) that there were no lions in Pleistocene Europe,
6) imagines Lucy buried her dead,
7) that animals weren't the norm on cave walls in
Pleistocene Europe,
8) that Neandertals lived only near the temperate coasts.
9) that Neandertals hibernate (http://tinyurl.com/3cphxn) (one
wonders why Neandertals would need to hibernate when they
only lived in the temperate areas of the coast according to
Crowley, but that's the kind of ignorance and logic you can
expect from the pub)

[Lee Olsen]

Chapstick wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> 169137014.222756.251740@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chapstick wrote:
> >> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message new-
> >> s:1169099023.910873.286760@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Chapstick wrote:
> >> >> "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert.
> >> >> Proof is in the pudding, no matter what your
> >> >> flawed-comparative data tells you." --Lee, Sun,
> >> >> Sep-11-05, 06:38 http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/i-
> >> >> ndex.php/t-263723.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Hello Lee et. al.,
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can
> >> >> either animal (human or horse) run for any length on
> >> >> the desert?
> >> >
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_18040-
> >> > 00/1804830.stm
> >> >
> >> > Even better I think...
> >> >
> >> > mclark found this one http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/
> >> > December 2006-January 2007 Click on 'samplings' "And
> >> > the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite; finding
> >> > and following the quarry every time it bolts out of
> >> > sight or mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork
> >> > helps. But done right, Liebenberg says, persistence
> >> > hunting is so effective that it may have helped select
> >> > for the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal
> >> > posture, and long strides that we all possess."
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The entire piece from mclark's link follows... thank
> >> you... meanwhile, if it (persistence hunting) is better
> >> than the bow and arrow, how come we invented (evolved)
> >> the bow and arrow? <grin> Of course, we DID develop that
> >> tool,
> >
> > Maybe it was a couch potato who needed to invent the bow
> > and arrow in the first place :-)
> >
> > Getting back to this point made in the article: "But done
> > right, Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so
> > effective that it may have helped select for the excellent
> > thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long strides
> > that we all possess."
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and
> > ran with better mechanics than we do today. The mechanics
> > of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are
> > superior to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some
> > of that efficiency of walking and running to give birth to
> > children with larger brains."
> >
> > As more and more innovations came along, the less physical
> > we needed to be, a feedback loop. Even though we have
> > teeth, we invented the pressure cooker anyway. One
> > anthropologist quipped that if the rate of tooth reduction
> > continues at the present rate, in another 50,000 years
> > humans probably won't have teeth at all.
>
> I agree with the concept that various pressures "caused" our
> various adaptions as time went along. (and, although it is
> off topic for this thread, I continue to speculate about
> sexual selection... if it exists and the rapidity with which
> it can bring about changes.... and how that alone might
> explain some of the hss features.) So, at one time, running
> down prey would have been selected for, and at another,
> larger female pelvises, and eventually, a more-premature
> birth (more helpless infant), etc. I do wonder how much "we"
> (meaning the people that post here on sap, and the rest of
> humanity that are concerned about questions of evolution)
> can depend on odd ball results from something as spectacular
> as a man beating a horse on a foot race thru the desert.
> (and, btw, i read carefully thru the part about the human
> taking advantage of the horse's rule-imposed water breaks)
> (it is also assumed that neither horse nor man could cross
> the desert without sufficient water....implying that if this
> concept applies to earliest homo, then he/she would have to
> have invented a water carrying technique).

I don't really think the horse in the desert example was all
that great either, but that IS the one you asked specifically
about. I gave the other example because it said 80%
successful. The article said something else that I think very
important --teamwork helps. Hyenas, lions, chimps, baboons,
and others all will hunt cooperatively at times, it pays or
they wouldn't do it. It would pay even more for early Homo
because it would eliminate the need for any one individual to
run the full 6 1/2 hours in the heat without water. It has
been my experience that in dry country animals hanging around
a particular water hole will simply run in the general
direction of the next waterhole anyway, when spooked, so no
need for a human to invent a water carrying technique for a
short chase (when hunting in teams). The books by the Leakeys
and John Pfeiffer give numerous accounts of the many ways
humans can catch animals much faster than ourselves that can
be learned by just careful observation (even running down
some species of birds). How much of this Homo e might have
figured out is speculation, but the cut marks on the bones
prove they were getting to them somehow.

> If we accept this result... outrunning a horse on the
> desert, then we might have to allow Marc to use the
> pearl divers, with their ability to dive to some 125
> meters (?) as the norm for humans. Or, that mankind may
> have evolved in outer space, since we have been to the
> moon. (and, perhaps in our future, some man or woman
> will survive a period of time with a punctured spacesuit
> in zero-g and zero-oxygen.) <grin> We're all aliens!
> bring on the Nasca Lines... <grin>

The horse was only one of many examples that could be given.
The difference between Marc's example and the running example
is that the tools that processed the bones are found nearly
everywhere in Africa, yet there is not one hominid processed
"pearl" to be found anywhere. The first tools to show up are
associated with antelope bones, tortoise shells, and ostrich
shells (all suggest areas of C4 plant growth, which is exactly
what is found in the isotope composition of early Homo teeth).
That is the null hypothesis (for all that transpired before)
until proven otherwise. No aliens need apply :-)

> To summarize what I am trying to think... I am
> interested in a sort of coherent, complex & dynamic,
> timeline of human development. I think we all want that.
> How did we become this thinking being? and not just
> another chimp? Does the chimp "think?" and etc. --chap

[claudiusde]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> 169137014.222756.251740@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ Click on 'samplings'
> >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
> >> > finding and following the quarry every time it bolts
> >> > out of sight or mingles with a herd is no easy
> >> > task-teamwork helps. But done right, Liebenberg says,
> >> > persistence hunting is so effective that it may have
> >> > helped select for the excellent thermoregulatory
> >> > system, bipedal posture, and long strides that we all
> >> > possess."
>
> This is unbelievably ignorant.

I couldn't agree more.

> So it is no surprise at all that Olsen agrees with it. The
> number of logical mistakes both in this one short paragraph
> (and in the rest of the article) must each come close to the
> record for PA -- and that's a standard hard to achieve.

Strangely, despite it's rather obvious dimwittedness I think
this perfectly represents the prevailing paradigm.

> >> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
>
> To succeed at all, the hunters must have exquisite skills.

Yep.

> So how are they ever going to get started along this track?

I will never understand (and surely they will never explain)
why these rather obvious questions seem to never occur to
these dimwits.

> Yet we have Liebenberg implying that it was done by
> (proto-?) hominids with one or more of
> (a) poor thermoregulatory systems,
> (b) no bipedalism,
> (c) short strides.
>
> (Of course, Liebenberg is so stupid he has not worked this
> out -- just like Olsen.)
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and
> > ran with better mechanics

Speculative nonsense. Bipedalism could only have emerged in
the context of a reduction in mobility, as is consistent with
a shift to communalism.

> > than we do today. The mechanics of his femur, femur head,
> > pelvis, and lower back are superior to those of today. We
> > have had to sacrifice some of that efficiency of walking
> > and running to give birth to children with larger brains."
>
> Yep, you can just see how this happened. Imagine two
> siblings: Ig and Og. Ig can run a tiny bit faster and
> longer, so he gets more to eat for his family, BUT Og is a
> tiny bit more brainier; he would be able to attend college
> and get a PA degree if there were any to be had. So
> naturally, even though he and his kids eat less, they do
> better in other, unspecifiable ways -- (perhaps a bit like
> getting degrees in PA and demonstrating all the intelligence
> we see on this newsgroup).
>
> That's how selection works. Isn't it obvious?

>
> Of course the fact that neither Ig nor Og get pregnant, nor
> the fact that females take no part in this running activity,
> have any relevance. We are required to believe that, in
> those times, males and females shared everything, and since
> this is PA, it is permissible to ignore all known biology --
> indeed, we are obliged to do that.
>
> > As more and more innovations came along, the less physical
> > we needed to be, a feedback loop.
>
> A 'feedback loop', indeed. The guy has not the
> faintest clue.

Feedback loop nonsense.

>
> >> and many others, so obviously something was to an
> >> advantage. Perhaps the "terrain" wasn't perfect in very
> >> many places.
> >
> > I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in
> > some places
>
> The only places where 'persistence tracking' is possible are
> where there was almost no cover, a minimal number of
> conspecifics (of the prey animal) and where tracking was
> possible almost everywhere -- i.e. near-desert. Bow and
> arrows are better everywhere else. But this idiot thinks
> that humans evolved in near-desert!
>
> > but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice in the
> > matter (perfect terrain or not).
>
> Sure. Lucy -- or her male counterpart -- was clearly
> designed for distance running. (What a total dope Olsen is
> -- and so typical of standard PA.)
>
> > They did not have the brain power to invent the bow and
> > arrow or pressure cooker, hence early Homo's better
> > running abilities were needed and selected for.
>
> When this kind of shit is the 'standard', how can anyone
> complain about Wet Apes -- or even about Creationists, Alien
> Abductions, and theories about Atlantis?

I couldn't agree more.

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news-
> > :1169137014.222756.251740@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ Click on
> > >> > 'samplings' "And the hunters' tracking skills must be
> > >> > exquisite; finding and following the quarry every
> > >> > time it bolts out of sight or mingles with a herd is
> > >> > no easy task-teamwork helps. But done right,
> > >> > Liebenberg says, persistence hunting is so effective
> > >> > that it may have helped select for the excellent
> > >> > thermoregulatory system, bipedal posture, and long
> > >> > strides that we all possess."
> >
> > This is unbelievably ignorant.
>
> I couldn't agree more.

<snip lip-service rant>

With McClaudius, ignorance is bliss....

Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21A99@thegrid.net>#1/1 Niccolo
Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've said
this before). You should read, and I mean read not just skim
which seems to be the thread of your work here, Kathy Schick
and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make statements which most of us know are
unsupported by the data. You need to read the
literature and find which ideas you have which are
just plain wrong and which are worthy of development."

Dan Barnes: "Unfortunately your theory is not in the position
where it can be directly addressed which is why a number of
people have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a first
year university student and I don't see why there should be an
exemption in your case."

Greg Laden: "Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions;
Imagine yourself in a graduate student seminar asking your
professor these questions? Well, I'm not your professor, and
you're not my student, but it is an interesting

thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students, and helpful to them, but if a student came back at
my questions or comments with this sort of response, I would
be very unhappy, and there is no telling what would happen!!!
Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory

of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things
like "No, you are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...."
etc.! I've given you the names of a half dozen scholars who
have done important work related to what you are interested
in. Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon: "Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in
any ways much different to that which was posted almost a year
ago on the old PalAnth List. Once again we have
unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical
literature. I did take the trouble to read your five thousand
four hundred words of

your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered
that in the intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have
read any of the comments or advice that were given to you last
time you posted an extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re
evolution'. If you had taken onboard any of the advised
literature that was given at that time, then if is not evident
in this latest of postings."

[Paul Crowl]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169137014.222756.251740@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

>> > http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ Click on 'samplings'
>> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;
>> > finding and following the quarry every time it bolts out
>> > of sight or mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork
>> > helps. But done right, Liebenberg says, persistence
>> > hunting is so effective that it may have helped select
>> > for the excellent thermoregulatory system, bipedal
>> > posture, and long strides that we all possess."

This is unbelievably ignorant. So it is no surprise at all
that Olsen agrees with it. The number of logical mistakes both
in this one short paragraph (and in the rest of the article)
must each come close to the record for PA -- and that's a
standard hard to achieve.

>> > "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;

To succeed at all, the hunters must have exquisite skills. So
how are they ever going to get started along this track? Yet
we have Liebenberg implying that it was done by (proto-?)
hominids with one or more of
(a) poor thermoregulatory systems,
(b) no bipedalism,
(c) short strides.

(Of course, Liebenberg is so stupid he has not worked this out
-- just like Olsen.)

> http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo " In fact, he (Homo e) walked and
> ran with better mechanics than we do today. The mechanics of
> his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are superior
> to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that
> efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children
> with larger brains."

Yep, you can just see how this happened. Imagine two siblings:
Ig and Og. Ig can run a tiny bit faster and longer, so he gets
more to eat for his family, BUT Og is a tiny bit more
brainier; he would be able to attend college and get a PA
degree if there were any to be had. So naturally, even though
he and his kids eat less, they do better in other,
unspecifiable ways -- (perhaps a bit like getting degrees in
PA and demonstrating all the intelligence we see on this
newsgroup).

That's how selection works. Isn't it obvious?

Of course the fact that neither Ig nor Og get pregnant, nor
the fact that females take no part in this running activity,
have any relevance. We are required to believe that, in those
times, males and females shared everything, and since this is
PA, it is permissible to ignore all known biology -- indeed,
we are obliged to do that.

> As more and more innovations came along, the less physical
> we needed to be, a feedback loop.

A 'feedback loop', indeed. The guy has not the faintest clue.

>> and many others, so obviously something was to an
>> advantage. Perhaps the "terrain" wasn't perfect in very
>> many places.
>
> I agree that running is not as good as a bow and arrow in
> some places

The only places where 'persistence tracking' is possible are
where there was almost no cover, a minimal number of
conspecifics (of the prey animal) and where tracking was
possible almost everywhere -- i.e. near-desert. Bow and arrows
are better everywhere else. But this idiot thinks that humans
evolved in near-desert!

> but Lucy and early Homo e did not have a choice in the
> matter (perfect terrain or not).

Sure. Lucy -- or her male counterpart -- was clearly designed
for distance running. (What a total dope Olsen is -- and so
typical of standard PA.)

> They did not have the brain power to invent the bow and
> arrow or pressure cooker, hence early Homo's better running
> abilities were needed and selected for.

When this kind of shit is the 'standard', how can anyone
complain about Wet Apes -- or even about Creationists, Alien
Abductions, and theories about Atlantis?

Paul.

[McLark]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169236667.554583.183680@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
[excess]
>
> <snip lip-service rant>
>
> With McClaudius, ignorance is bliss....
>
> Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21A99@thegrid.net>#1/1 Niccolo
> Caldararo: "You really need to do some reading (and I've
> said this before). You should read, and I mean read not just
> skim which seems to be the thread of your work here, Kathy
> Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones Speak
> (1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
> continually make statements which most of us know
> are unsupported by the data. You need to read the
> literature and find which ideas you have which are
> just plain wrong and which are worthy of
> development."
>
> Dan Barnes: "Unfortunately your theory is not in the
> position where it can be directly addressed which is why a
> number of people have suggested that the best thing you can
> do is do substantial background reading, reframe your
> arguement and come back again. This is what would happen if
> you were a first year university student and I don't see why
> there should be an exemption in your case."
>
> Greg Laden: "Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions;
> Imagine yourself in a graduate student seminar asking your
> professor these questions? Well, I'm not your professor, and
> you're not my student, but it is an interesting
>
> thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of
> my students, and helpful to them, but if a student came back
> at my questions or comments with this sort of response, I
> would be very unhappy, and there is no telling what would
> happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
>
> of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things
> like "No, you are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...."
> etc.! I've given you the names of a half dozen scholars who
> have done important work related to what you are interested
> in. Hit the books, kid!"
>
> Su Solomon: "Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is
> in any ways much different to that which was posted almost a
> year ago on the old PalAnth List. Once again we have
> unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of the
> mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical
> literature. I did take the trouble to read your five
> thousand four hundred words of
>
> your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered
> that in the intevening 11 months you have not appeared to
> have read any of the comments or advice that were given to
> you last time you posted an extermely similiar
> 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had taken
> onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
> time, then if is not evident in this latest of postings."

One of my favorites:

1fz4k2d.1wi9nd3vbvbu4N%john.wilkins@bigpond.com

--
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly hath neither job
nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19

[Lee Olsen]

claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> It's the evidence that matters.

Then post some evidence already....

Jim McGinn: "we can be fairly certain that they never ventured
more than 50 or maybe a 100 yards from the safety of trees."

Jim McGinn: "Spears are useless against hyena and lions."

Jim McGinn: "..then what purpose do the stone weapons
(spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting
about 2.5 mya?"

[Rich Travs]

Lee Olsen wrote:
>

Hey Lee:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/4441000a.html
Nature Published online: 21 December 2006; |
doi:10.1038/4441000a Physiology: Freaks of nature?
Ultraendurance racers torture their bodies and minds to
achieve near-impossible physical feats. Is it an exceptional
genetic make-up or the vestiges of human evolution? Helen
Pearson reports. [...]

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/box/4441000a_BX1.html
The toughest races on Earth Robyn Benincasa, a San Diego
firefighter and successful ultraendurance athlete, remembers
her most gruelling moment. In the Ecuadorian Andes in 1998,
she had been racing for two days and nights without sleep, and
faced climbing a volcano more than 6,000 metres in altitude.
"My nail beds were blue, my lips were blue, my whole body was
blue," she recalls. "I was on my hands and knees in the snow,
crying." Somehow — she does not remember how — she made it to
the summit, and her team eventually won.

Sound like a good time? People voluntarily participate in such
races, looking to push their bodies to the limit. Here's a
look at some of the most challenging: [...]

[Lee Olsen]

Rich Travsky wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> >
>
> Hey Lee:

Thanks, I will add them to my list.

>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/4441000a.html
> Nature Published online: 21 December 2006; |
> doi:10.1038/4441000a Physiology: Freaks of nature?
> Ultraendurance racers torture their bodies and minds to
> achieve near-impossible physical feats. Is it an exceptional
> genetic make-up or the vestiges of human evolution? Helen
> Pearson reports. [...]
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/box/4441000a_BX1.ht-
> ml The toughest races on Earth Robyn Benincasa, a San Diego
> firefighter and successful ultraendurance athlete,
> remembers her most gruelling moment. In the Ecuadorian
> Andes in 1998, she had been racing for two days and nights
> without sleep, and faced climbing a volcano more than 6,000
> metres in altitude. "My nail beds were blue, my lips were
> blue, my whole body was blue," she recalls. "I was on my
> hands and knees in the snow, crying." Somehow - she does
> not remember how - she made it to the summit, and her team
> eventually won.
>
> Sound like a good time? People voluntarily participate in
> such races, looking to push their bodies to the limit.
> Here's a look at some of the most challenging: [...]

[Paul Crowl]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169443168.356559.190220@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
>> Lee Olsen wrote:
>> >
>> Hey Lee:
>
> Thanks, I will add them to my list.

Your list of WHAT?

I guess you guys have no concept whatever of 'the struggle
to survive'.

Heck, why would you? The whole point of life as a middle-class
PA with academic ambitions, is to avoid anything like that.

You have clearly never observed any kind of wildlife, nor
noticed the extremities which individuals in nearly all
species choose (or are obliged) to endure, nor the
correspondingly low survival rates suffered by juveniles in
nearly all species.

That is also, of course, not to mention your near total
ignorance of human life, both in the modern world and
throughout history. We just take that for granted.

>> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/4441000a.html
>> Nature Published online: 21 December 2006; |
>> doi:10.1038/4441000a Physiology: Freaks of nature?
>> Ultraendurance racers torture their bodies and minds to
>> achieve near-impossible physical feats. Is it an
>> exceptional genetic make-up or the vestiges of human
>> evolution? Helen Pearson reports. [...]
>>
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/box/4441000a_BX1.ht-
>> ml The toughest races on Earth Robyn Benincasa, a San Diego
>> firefighter and successful ultraendurance athlete,
>> remembers her most gruelling moment. In the Ecuadorian
>> Andes in 1998, she had been racing for two days and nights
>> without sleep, and faced climbing a volcano more than 6,000
>> metres in altitude. "My nail beds were blue, my lips were
>> blue, my whole body was blue," she recalls. "I was on my
>> hands and knees in the snow, crying." Somehow - she does
>> not remember how - she made it to the summit, and her team
>> eventually won.
>>
>> Sound like a good time? People voluntarily participate in
>> such races, looking to push their bodies to the limit.
>> Here's a look at some of the most challenging: [...]

[Nickname]

Lee: The
> difference between Marc's example and the running example is
> that the tools that processed the bones are found nearly
> everywhere in Africa,

Wait a minute tiger! I'm happy to accept that some stones were
used to snap some bones. But that doesn't take fancy tools,
chimps do similar stuff with pebbles, breaking nuts, right?

How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were not
transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and after
the rainy season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used to craft
dug-outs from downed river trees, similar to current
primitive tribal methods using steel/iron tools? C4 plants
grow best in wetlands.

African savannas were conquered via river boats from coastal
regions AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World and
Australian colonialization by multiple migrations of humans.
Only in dug-out boats could humans enter without fear into the
domain of the inland predators and crocs etc. AFAICT.

DD

> yet there is not one hominid processed "pearl" to be found
> anywhere. The first tools to show up are associated with
> antelope bones, tortoise shells, and ostrich shells (all
> suggest areas of C4 plant growth, which is exactly what is
> found in the isotope composition of early Homo teeth). That
> is the null hypothesis (for all that transpired before)
> until proven otherwise. No aliens need apply :-)
>
> > To summarize what I am trying to think... I am
> > interested in a sort of coherent, complex & dynamic,
> > timeline of human development. I think we all want
> > that. How did we become this thinking being? and not
> > just another chimp? Does the chimp "think?" and etc.
> > --chap

[claudiusde]

> "And the hunters' tracking skills must be exquisite;

Yes, therefore it's useless as a model that will describe the
transition of chimps to hominids. Chimps aren't capable of
exquisite tracking skills.

finding and
> following the quarry every time it bolts out of sight or
> mingles with a herd is no easy task-teamwork helps. But done
> right, Liebenberg

Who is this retard Liebenberg. He obviously is clueless about
evolution.

> says, persistence hunting is so effective that it may have
> helped select for the excellent thermoregulatory system,
> bipedal posture, and long strides that we all possess."

This is an AAT type argument. You have to about be retarded to
think it represents anything about hominid adaptations. Humans
are social animals you dipwad.

[Nickname]

On Jan 26, 8:09 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:11-
> 69785620.100671.121650@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote: Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will
> > find out why they weren't used in making dugouts.

I'm not familiar with the waterside trees in Africa or
Eurasia, but American balsa and basswood is very soft very
buoyant timber which I'd think would be easy to cut,
especially since they tend to hollow as they age, fire would
be unnecessary.

Harder or splintery wood would be easier to burn than cut, so
a hand-axe as a chisel pounded by a short branch (whacker
mallet), to knock out charcoaled wood, and water added to stop
the burning through the hull, makes for a few days work at
waterside.

Since skin boats (kayaks) are made at waterside (sealskins),
and birchbark canoes are made at waterside (birch grows best
near water), and C4 reed rafts are made at waterside, it is
hardly a stretch to think that waterside trees were used to
make dug-outs, and have been made that way for an incredibly
long time (majority of ancient hand axes found at waterside
excluding ones found at quarry sites). I employ the word
hand-axe rather than stone tool, because any rock is
potentially a stone tool.

One technique is to employ fire.
> Carbonised wood is not hard to remove.

Right!

> >> African savannas were conquered

OK Paul, they were visited. The significance is that from the
coast, rivers were the routes inland, villages were eventually
established a bit inland and survival was dependent on trade
with coastal peoples as it remains today.

They were 'conquered' (insofar as they
> ever were) by white guys in pith helmets and with guns.
>
> >> via river boats from coastal regions AFAICT, exactly in
> >> parallel with New World and Australian colonialization by
> >> multiple migrations of humans.

Sheer fantasy.

Hardly. It has happened countless times. Start at the delta,
move inland on river.

> >> Only in dug-out boats could humans enter without fear
> >> into the domain of the inland predators and crocs etc.
> >> AFAICT.

The predators did not prey on the rare
> hominids they encountered for the same reason that sharks
> rarely attack swimmers. They can make no sense of the bipeds
> and don't see them as prey.

Sheer fantasy?

Dug-outs provided access into regions where bipeds (ostrich,
ducks, kangaroos) were regular menu items for quadrupeds. No
predators attack floating logs.

> > Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a
> > million+ years ago?

Refugees and near-juvenile adventurers
> would have emerged from most generations from the
> populations of the hominids on the coast. They might have
> survived for a short time in the alien environment of
> uplands. But they would rarely, if ever, have managed to
> raise families to maturity.
>
> Paul.

The riverine (boat) arterial trade networks enabled Homo to
permanently reside far from the coasts. Previous to that,
Hominids which moved inland would have adapted to a more
arboreal life as seen in the Great Apes or a woods and wetland
life as seen in the Apiths. Brain size would have decreased.
No doubt they could use stone as tools, like some chimps
today. Bifacial butted Hand-axes were Homo chisel tools, while
blades/flakes were slitting tools.

More in AAT.

DD

[Nickname]

On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname"
> <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Lee: The
>
> > > difference between Marc's example and the running
> > > example is that the tools that processed the bones are
> > > found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger!
> > > I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > snap some bones.

Some? Define some?

Define stone tool? a rock?

>
> > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar stuff
> > with pebbles, breaking nuts, right?

Right, but what would that observation have to do with the
distribution
> of the tools? There is nothing in this distribution that
> would back up any of Marc's claims.

Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are
in this thread that I can see.

>
>
>
> > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were
> > not transported to the sites via dug-out boats during and
> > after the rainy season? Or that the hand-axes weren't used
> > to craft dug-outs from downed river trees, similar to
> > current primitive tribal methods using

Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find
out why they
> weren't used in making dugouts.

See my response to Paul.

> > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?

C4 plants grow best when well watered and in sunlight, eg.
cattails, rice. C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in
open wetlands and open savanna (fire/seasonal complex)

> > African savannas were conquered via river boats from
> > coastal regions AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New World
> > and Australian colonialization by multiple migrations of
> > humans. Only in dug-out boats could humans enter without
> > fear into the domain of the inland predators and crocs
> > etc. AFAICT.

Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a
million+ years ago?

Again, "stone tools" is a bit vague, no? What stone is not a
tool in the hands of a man or chimp? I'm speaking of obviously
crafted bifacial hand-axes and blade/flakes, I don't know what
you are referring to.

I consider three types of bifacial hand-axes:
1) Butted: Found water-side, used for dug-out
construction primarily
2) Butted: Found elsewhere, used for bone splitting for marrow
and bone tool making
3) Non-Butted: Cores found at and near quarries, for flaking
and recycling DD

> > > yet there is not one hominid processed "pearl" to be
> > > found anywhere. The first tools to show up are
> > > associated with antelope bones, tortoise shells, and
> > > ostrich shells (all suggest areas of C4 plant growth,
> > > which is exactly what is found in the isotope
> > > composition of early Homo teeth). That is the null
> > > hypothesis (for all that transpired before) until proven
> > > otherwise. No aliens need apply :-)
>
> > > > To summarize what I am trying to think... I am
> > > > interested in a sort of coherent, complex &
> > > > dynamic, timeline of human development. I think we
> > > > all want that. How did we become this thinking
> > > > being? and not just another chimp? Does the chimp
> > > > "think?" and etc. --chap- Hide quoted text -- Show
> > > > quoted text -

[Nickname]

Lee, I guess these stone tools were what you meant:

Lee: "tool use: Too bad it has been conclusively proven
that some ...

DD: Define "some?"

Lee: ..of those tools are a function of butchering savanna
animals and none have ever been proven to be a function of
shell or Trapa processing, and if you say you don't need tools
to process shells/Trapa, then you contradict your own argument
about aquatics governing tool development. You are letting
your prejudices get in the way of the hard facts etc etc."

DE: You mentioned the Hadza don't live where they hunt. If H
erectus lived on the savanna, then following that logic,
they didn't hunt on the savanna, but rather somewhere
else. Where? Rivers & lakes? in dug-outs?

DD

On Jan 26, 11:00 am, "nickname"
<alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen"
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Lee: The
>
> > > > difference between Marc's example and the running
> > > > example is that the tools that processed the bones are
> > > > found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger!
> > > > I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > > snap some bones.Some? Define some?
>
> Define stone tool? a rock?
>
>
>
> > > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar
> > > stuff with pebbles, breaking nuts, right?Right, but what
> > > would that observation have to do with the distribution
>
> > of the tools? There is nothing in this distribution that
> > would back up any of Marc's claims.Marc has made many
> > claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
> thread that I can see.
>
>
>
> > > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were
> > > not transported to the sites via dug-out boats during
> > > and after the rainy season? Or that the hand-axes
> > > weren't used to craft dug-outs from downed river trees,
> > > similar to current primitive tribal methods usingTry
> > > making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out
> > > why they
>
> > weren't used in making dugouts.See my response to Paul.
>
> > > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?C4 plants grow
> > > best when well watered and in sunlight, eg. cattails,
> rice. C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in open
> wetlands and open savanna (fire/seasonal complex)
>
> > > African savannas were conquered via river boats from
> > > coastal regions AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New
> > > World and Australian colonialization by multiple
> > > migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats could humans
> > > enter without fear into the domain of the inland
> > > predators and crocs etc. AFAICT.Then how did all the
> > > stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
> ago?
>
> Again, "stone tools" is a bit vague, no? What stone is not a
> tool in the hands of a man or chimp? I'm speaking of
> obviously crafted bifacial hand-axes and blade/flakes, I
> don't know what you are referring to.
>
> I consider three types of bifacial hand-axes:
> 1) Butted: Found water-side, used for dug-out construction
> primarily
> 2) Butted: Found elsewhere, used for bone splitting for
> marrow and bone tool making
> 3) Non-Butted: Cores found at and near quarries, for flaking
> and recycling DD
>
> > > > yet there is not one hominid processed "pearl" to be
> > > > found anywhere. The first tools to show up are
> > > > associated with antelope bones, tortoise shells, and
> > > > ostrich shells (all suggest areas of C4 plant growth,
> > > > which is exactly what is found in the isotope
> > > > composition of early Homo teeth). That is the null
> > > > hypothesis (for all that transpired before) until
> > > > proven otherwise. No aliens need apply :-)
>
> > > > > To summarize what I am trying to think... I am
> > > > > interested in a sort of coherent, complex &
> > > > > dynamic, timeline of human development. I think
> > > > > we all want that. How did we become this
> > > > > thinking being? and not just another chimp? Does
> > > > > the chimp "think?" and etc. --chap- Hide quoted
> > > > > text -- Show quoted text -

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 26, 11:00 am, "nickname"
<alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:27 pm, "Lee Olsen"
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Lee: The
>
> > > > difference between Marc's example and the running
> > > > example is that the tools that processed the bones are
> > > > found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger!
> > > > I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
> > > snap some bones.Some? Define some?
>
> Define stone tool? a rock?

Why, will that make all the tools "found nearly everywhere in
Africa" go away? What is your point? So in your mind you
define "some" as a "rock"?

>
>
>
> > > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar
> > > stuff with pebbles, breaking nuts, right?Right, but what
> > > would that observation have to do with the distribution
>
> > of the tools? There is nothing in this distribution that
> > would back up any of Marc's claims.Marc has made many
> > claims, which ones are at issue? None are in this
> thread that I can see.

You might want to go back to the very first post in this
thread (which set the topic of it) and look at the cited URL,
which did give Marc's views. But to make it short, I'm
referring to Marc's incessant canned "littoral" spiel about
human evolution specifically, the one we have all seen here
countless times.

>
>
>
> > > How do you know that the stone tools esp. hand-axes were
> > > not transported to the sites via dug-out boats during
> > > and after the rainy season? Or that the hand-axes
> > > weren't used to craft dug-outs from downed river trees,
> > > similar to current primitive tribal methods usingTry
> > > making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out
> > > why they
>
> > weren't used in making dugouts.See my response to Paul.

That is circular. Cite in the peer-reviewed literature where
anyone has claimed handaxes were used to make dugouts.

>
> > > C4 plants grow best in wetlands.Citation?C4 plants grow
> > > best when well watered and in sunlight, eg. cattails,
> rice. C4 plants compete better against C3 plants in open
> wetlands and open savanna (fire/seasonal complex)

Where are you getting this? I've cited a source several times
recently (in other threads) that says just the opposite. If
you cite where you got your info, I will look up my source and
post it again.

>
> > > African savannas were conquered via river boats from
> > > coastal regions AFAICT, exactly in parallel with New
> > > World and Australian colonialization by multiple
> > > migrations of humans. Only in dug-out boats could humans
> > > enter without fear into the domain of the inland
> > > predators and crocs etc. AFAICT.Then how did all the
> > > stone tools get on the savannas a million+ years
> ago?
>
> Again, "stone tools" is a bit vague, no? What stone is not a
> tool in the hands of a man or chimp? I'm speaking of
> obviously crafted bifacial hand-axes and blade/flakes, I
> don't know what you are referring to.

Again, I'm referring to the distribution of all the tools,
not a certain type, or I would have said so. You are the one
talking about handaxes, but I don't see how they would
falsify what I claimed anyway, since they are found in the
same places the rest of the tools are found (but somewhat
later in time). The distribution of them in no way patterns
itself to a "littorial" lifestyle per Marc.

>
> I consider three types of bifacial hand-axes:
> 1) Butted: Found water-side, used for dug-out construction
> primarily
> 2) Butted: Found elsewhere, used for bone splitting for
> marrow and bone tool making
> 3) Non-Butted: Cores found at and near quarries, for flaking
> and recycling

Your description of handaxes, no matter how erroneous, is not
an explaination of how tools of all kinds got on the savanna a
million years+ ago.

> DD

[Paul Crowl]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169785620.100671.121650@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "nickname"
> <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Try making a dugout with a hand axe and you will find out
> why they weren't used in making dugouts.

One technique is to employ fire. Carbonised wood is not hard
to remove.

>> African savannas were conquered

They were 'conquered' (insofar as they ever were) by white
guys in pith helmets and with guns.

>> via river boats from coastal regions AFAICT, exactly in
>> parallel with New World and Australian colonialization by
>> multiple migrations of humans.

Sheer fantasy.

>> Only in dug-out boats could humans enter without fear into
>> the domain of the inland predators and crocs etc. AFAICT.

The predators did not prey on the rare hominids they
encountered for the same reason that sharks rarely attack
swimmers. They can make no sense of the bipeds and don't see
them as prey.

> Then how did all the stone tools get on the savannas a
> million+ years ago?

Refugees and near-juvenile adventurers would have emerged from
most generations from the populations of the hominids on the
coast. They might have survived for a short time in the alien
environment of uplands. But they would rarely, if ever, have
managed to raise families to maturity.

Paul.

[Marc Verha]

"nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169838022.604255.249840@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> > Lee: The
>> > > difference between Marc's example and the running
>> > > example is that the tools that processed the bones are
>> > > found nearly everywhere in Africa,Wait a minute tiger!
>> > > I'm happy to accept that some stones were used to
>> > snap some bones.

> Some? Define some?

> Define stone tool? a rock?

>> > But that doesn't take fancy tools, chimps do similar
>> > stuff with pebbles, breaking nuts, right?

> Right, but what would that observation have to do with the
> distribution
>> of the tools? There is nothing in this distribution that
>> would back up any of Marc's claims.

> Marc has made many claims, which ones are at issue? None are
> in this thread that I can see.

Yes, Nickname, I've not been following this discussion, but
if by "Marc" that man means me, I don't see how any of
these tools distributions contradict any of my claims. To
the contrary:
IMO:The Amphibious Ancestors Theory is not about apes, nor
about having been aquatic. AAT = Homo littoral diaspora.
AAT states that our ancestors sometime after the Homo/Pan
split relied partly on aquatic resources:
- Homo: AAT, contrary to what many old-fashioned PAs still
believe, has nothing to do with australopiths,
- littoral: AAT is about our ancestors having been shoreline
dwellers (coast/lake/river-side),
- diaspora: Homo remains 1.8 Ma are found in places as far as
Ain Hanech (Algeria), Dmanisi (Georgia), Mojokerto (Java)
etc. AAT simply says that these people got there along
shorelines, and that only fools believe that our ancestors
ever ran over hot dry plains. Of course, we all know some
adult men (not the children, not the women...) of some
remote populations do that sometimes, but it's ridiculous to
conclude from this that humans descend from plain-dwellers!
All sensible PAs now agree with a "wet" past & shoreline
dispersals, eg, Ph.Tobias
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm Chr.Stringer
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003982.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT AAT (shoreline adaptations
of the genus Homo) is based on the
behavior-anatomy-physiology-DNA of living humans vs. chimps &
other animals. Sea/lake-side ancestors collecting coconuts,
fruits, bird eggs, turtles, shell-, crayfish, algae etc.
explains unique Homo traits (not seen in apes or
australopiths) better than plains- or forest-dwelling : brain
size, diving skills, breath control, vocality, small mouth &
chewing muscles, tongue bone descent, longer airway,
projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness, tool use,
late puberty, long legs, aligned body, poor climbing, fur
loss, fatness, high needs of water, sodium, iodine &
poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. Homo & Pan split ~6-4 Ma.
Most likely, Homo populations dispersed along coasts & rivers,
in savannas or elsewhere: in spite of sea level fluctuations
(difficult fossilisation), Homo tools/fossils 2.5-0.1 Ma are
found near Rift valley lakes, Indian Ocean & African coasts :
Mojokerto, Dungo V Baia Farta, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea
etc. Savanna-runners crossing 18 km of sea to reach Flores?!
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html http://alls-
erv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/

[claudiusde]

On Jan 22, 6:54 am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:

> > Thanks, I will add them to my list.

> Your list of WHAT?

Reminds me of Algis and Marc making a list of humans
swimming/wading and thinking that it represents evidence. In
terms of their respective intellectual methodology there is
hardly any difference between AAT and conventional theory.
People that don't understand evolution--including yourself,
Paul--should avoid human evolution. All we see from all of you
idiots is simpleminded adaptationism. You have to about be
retarded for it to not be obvious that the most significant
adatpations for humans are social/communal. You dimwits are
incapable of realizing that humans are the only species that
regularly carries on conversations with conspecifics.

>
> I guess you guys have no concept whatever of 'the struggle
> to survive'.
>
> Heck, why would you? The whole point of life as a
> middle-class PA with academic ambitions, is to avoid
> anything like that.

Paul, you don't understand evolution well enough to give
advice. You think the phrase, "struggle to survive," changes
anything? You're a simpleton.

To understand human evolution you have to cast your theory in
the context of the situational factors (environment, ecology)
that existed at the time hominids first emerged. Your stupid
speculations are worthless. You can't abstract your thinking
from ecological realities and expect to come up with anything
worth considering.

>
> You have clearly never observed any kind of wildlife, nor
> noticed the extremities which individuals in nearly all
> species choose (or are obliged) to endure, nor the
> correspondingly low survival rates suffered by juveniles in
> nearly all species.
>
> That is also, of course, not to mention your near total
> ignorance of human life, both in the modern world and
> throughout history. We just take that for granted.
>
>
>
> >>http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/4441000a.html
> >>Nature Published online: 21 December 2006; |
> >>doi:10.1038/4441000a Physiology: Freaks of nature?
> >>Ultraendurance racers torture their bodies and minds to
> >>achieve near-impossible physical feats. Is it an
> >>exceptional genetic make-up or the vestiges of human
> >>evolution? Helen Pearson reports. [...]
>
> >>http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/box/4441000a_BX1.h-
> >>tml The toughest races on Earth Robyn Benincasa, a San
> >>Diego firefighter and successful ultraendurance athlete,
> >>remembers her most gruelling moment. In the Ecuadorian
> >>Andes in 1998, she had been racing for two days and nights
> >>without sleep, and faced climbing a volcano more than
> >>6,000 metres in altitude. "My nail beds were blue, my lips
> >>were blue, my whole body was blue," she recalls. "I was on
> >>my hands and knees in the snow, crying." Somehow - she
> >>does not remember how - she made it to the summit, and her
> >>team eventually won.
>
> >> Sound like a good time? People voluntarily participate in
> >> such races, looking to push their bodies to the limit.
> >> Here's a look at some of the most challenging: [...]-
> >> Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Rich Travs]

Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You have clearly never observed any kind of wildlife,.....
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cnmum Paul Crowley: ""Chimps do NOT have
> the capacity to dig."

Oh that's a good one, esp when it's directly contradicted by
the bottom one!

> http://tinyurl.com/2wldcx Paul Crowley: "You will get better
> thinking about human evolution on any day in any pub than
> you will get in 10 years of any PA 'scientific' journal."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yc5rns Scientific journal: "We have found
> evidence that wild chimpanzees used stout sticks to dig into
> one end of a decayed fallen trunk from the side.." Primates
> 2003 Apr;44(2):199

[Nickname]

On Jan 17, 8:31 pm, "Chapstick" <chapst...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> "Easy, because we can out run a horse in the desert. Proof
> is in the pudding, no matter what your flawed-comparative
> data tells you." --Lee, Sun, Sep-11-05, 06:38http://forum.l-
> owcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-263723.html
>
> Hello Lee et. al.,
>
> Is this true? We can outrun a horse on the desert? Can
> either animal (human or horse) run for any length on
> the desert?
>
> TIA, chap

Well, one thing that connects ancient people to deserts, is
that deserts are great places to dry oily fish, caught in nets
offshore using reed watercraft or dug-outs, especially if
water-dogs are trained to herd swarms of fish into the nets,
as I assume occurred in coastal Chile and Peru 10ka. Here's
one anthropological hypothesis relating Hs to desert coasts:
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=arti-
cle&sid=85 DD