Lee Olsen
Fri, Jul-20-07, 06:16
On Jul 16, 5:27 pm, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:24 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 1:44 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
> > wrote: More lip sevice.
>
> > Comparative-imagination evidence is nice. One can imagine
> > Homo ancestors living almost anywhere, bottom of the
> > Indian Ocean, Atlantis, seaside, who can prove you wrong?
> > Absence of evidence then becomes proof. One can imagine
> > early Homo eating mountain beaver food, swishing for algae
> > like flamingos, noodling for catfish. Sir Hardy knew what
> > he was doing when he gave up AAT for spiritual phenomenon,
> > because isotopic sigatures refute algae, sedges etc. Smart
> > guy that Hardy.
>
> Not that I am going to jump on either bandwagon, but
> there is some evidence that the bonobo eats some sort of
> teeny, tiny food out of streams. Cf. Bonobo: The
> Forgotten Ape, By FRANS DE WAAL, Photography by FRANS
> LANTING, University of California Press. He did not know
> what the bonobos were eating but they spent some time at
> the activity.
But I know what the bonobos were eating even if Frans does
not. The teeth of the bonobos reflect C3 fruit and veggies,
isotopic-forest food, just exactly as expected for the
habitat in which they are living. We know common chimps eat a
small amount of monkey meat and termites, but not enough to
dominate the major portion of their diet or the isotopic
signature of their teeth. If early Homo ate tons of algae and
other riverside food, the signature of their teeth would be
the same as chimps/G, C3. This is not the case, early Homo is
C4, just exactly as one would expect from the cut-marks on
antelope bones, thus it is also the same as the signature as
the habitat in which they were living ie savanna. Early Homo
is always found with ostriches, big cats etc, which of course
are savanna or open woodland type creatures.
>Also, please note
The depth of the stream you cite is ankle deep, nothing that
would invoke swimming or diving (else the common and bonobos
wouldn't be trapped on opposite sides of the Congo). If they
did swim and dive on a semi-aquatic basis, why are they not
AAT also? Surely there is more water running through the Congo
Basin than the savanna at Gona.
> that De Waal devotes an entire page to poo-pooing the AAT.
> Point is, that if our LCA also ate some sort of teeny, tiny
> food out of streams then the evidence would be De Waal's
> observation... the bonobo swishing for algae... or some
> such stuff.
I have no doubt that they do swish for something algae-like
(same with gorillas who also wade in streams and eat swamp
food), since their teeth isotopes reflect this. The teeth of
early Homo does not (Julia Lee-Thorp 2001).
> There is evidence that h.e. coprolytes from Terra Amata
> contained shell fragments. This kiddie book here in my
> hand, "Jurassic Poop" by Jacob Berkowitz, 2006, on page
> 28 says that "The oldest human coprolites found so far
> are 300,000-year-old coprolites discovered along the
> southern coast of France, at Terra Amata."
Sorry charles, but if you crap on a beach full of shell
fragments, a small amount of shell will certainly get into
some of the corprolites. Terra Amada is not that old compared
to Gona, either most or all of human evolution had taken place
by then, so even *if* shells were involved, who cares?
> In my opinion, most or all of the evidence from Terra Amata
> is currently under revision... much of it was interpreted
> incorrectly. The floor of the so-called dwellings were
> littered with coprolites, so the research should be
> reproducible... scientifically repeatable. But *if* there
> is solid evidence that the poop contains shells, then that
> pushes the date of shellfish consumption back before the
> origin of hss,
*if* is not likely.
> and will require some revision in the mosaic thinking.
Terra Amada is simply too recent in time to have had any major
effect on the evolution of Homo as opposed to the millions of
years that came before on the savannas.
> We are a generalist species, and seem to eat about
> everything.
Today our teeth may not reflect a C4 diet, simply because we
are everywhere, not just on the savanna. But this has nothing
to do with the beginnings and progress of Homo evolution on
the hot, dry savannas.
> So that is my poo poo for the day. Ain't ya' proud?
> <smile>
Well, don't poo poo on a beach, you will get seashell
fragments in it and some archy a half a million years from now
will think you were eating clam shells rather than Big Macs.
> --charles
You really should get a real name, charles.
> On Jul 16, 5:24 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 1:44 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be>
> > wrote: More lip sevice.
>
> > Comparative-imagination evidence is nice. One can imagine
> > Homo ancestors living almost anywhere, bottom of the
> > Indian Ocean, Atlantis, seaside, who can prove you wrong?
> > Absence of evidence then becomes proof. One can imagine
> > early Homo eating mountain beaver food, swishing for algae
> > like flamingos, noodling for catfish. Sir Hardy knew what
> > he was doing when he gave up AAT for spiritual phenomenon,
> > because isotopic sigatures refute algae, sedges etc. Smart
> > guy that Hardy.
>
> Not that I am going to jump on either bandwagon, but
> there is some evidence that the bonobo eats some sort of
> teeny, tiny food out of streams. Cf. Bonobo: The
> Forgotten Ape, By FRANS DE WAAL, Photography by FRANS
> LANTING, University of California Press. He did not know
> what the bonobos were eating but they spent some time at
> the activity.
But I know what the bonobos were eating even if Frans does
not. The teeth of the bonobos reflect C3 fruit and veggies,
isotopic-forest food, just exactly as expected for the
habitat in which they are living. We know common chimps eat a
small amount of monkey meat and termites, but not enough to
dominate the major portion of their diet or the isotopic
signature of their teeth. If early Homo ate tons of algae and
other riverside food, the signature of their teeth would be
the same as chimps/G, C3. This is not the case, early Homo is
C4, just exactly as one would expect from the cut-marks on
antelope bones, thus it is also the same as the signature as
the habitat in which they were living ie savanna. Early Homo
is always found with ostriches, big cats etc, which of course
are savanna or open woodland type creatures.
>Also, please note
The depth of the stream you cite is ankle deep, nothing that
would invoke swimming or diving (else the common and bonobos
wouldn't be trapped on opposite sides of the Congo). If they
did swim and dive on a semi-aquatic basis, why are they not
AAT also? Surely there is more water running through the Congo
Basin than the savanna at Gona.
> that De Waal devotes an entire page to poo-pooing the AAT.
> Point is, that if our LCA also ate some sort of teeny, tiny
> food out of streams then the evidence would be De Waal's
> observation... the bonobo swishing for algae... or some
> such stuff.
I have no doubt that they do swish for something algae-like
(same with gorillas who also wade in streams and eat swamp
food), since their teeth isotopes reflect this. The teeth of
early Homo does not (Julia Lee-Thorp 2001).
> There is evidence that h.e. coprolytes from Terra Amata
> contained shell fragments. This kiddie book here in my
> hand, "Jurassic Poop" by Jacob Berkowitz, 2006, on page
> 28 says that "The oldest human coprolites found so far
> are 300,000-year-old coprolites discovered along the
> southern coast of France, at Terra Amata."
Sorry charles, but if you crap on a beach full of shell
fragments, a small amount of shell will certainly get into
some of the corprolites. Terra Amada is not that old compared
to Gona, either most or all of human evolution had taken place
by then, so even *if* shells were involved, who cares?
> In my opinion, most or all of the evidence from Terra Amata
> is currently under revision... much of it was interpreted
> incorrectly. The floor of the so-called dwellings were
> littered with coprolites, so the research should be
> reproducible... scientifically repeatable. But *if* there
> is solid evidence that the poop contains shells, then that
> pushes the date of shellfish consumption back before the
> origin of hss,
*if* is not likely.
> and will require some revision in the mosaic thinking.
Terra Amada is simply too recent in time to have had any major
effect on the evolution of Homo as opposed to the millions of
years that came before on the savannas.
> We are a generalist species, and seem to eat about
> everything.
Today our teeth may not reflect a C4 diet, simply because we
are everywhere, not just on the savanna. But this has nothing
to do with the beginnings and progress of Homo evolution on
the hot, dry savannas.
> So that is my poo poo for the day. Ain't ya' proud?
> <smile>
Well, don't poo poo on a beach, you will get seashell
fragments in it and some archy a half a million years from now
will think you were eating clam shells rather than Big Macs.
> --charles
You really should get a real name, charles.