The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate

[claudiusde]

An ecology based approach to understanding human origins

New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They are
part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise new
biomes don't just spring up out of the blue, they are the
result of changes in environments/climatic conditions.

Here's the way speciation works. Ecosystems experience a
change in climate. The change in climate causes a period of
extreme stress whereupon a whole set of niches disappear and a
whole new set of niches appear. New species either find their
way to a new niche (and this almost always involves a whole
host of new adaptations and new behaviors being achieved
simultaneously rather than just one or two adaptations) or
they go extinct.

The gradualistic, just-so-story approach to understanding the
origins of new species, an approach to which all
paleoanthropologist subscribe, is an archaic approach that was
developed in the nineteenth century when ecological ignorance
was the rule. We know better now. Species evolve in a
punctuated fashion. (If you don't know what this means then I
suggest doing some research on a concept called punctuated
equilibrium.) And, like I said above, they evolve a whole host
of strategies and traits at once to fit the lifestyle
requirements of the new niche. Consequently hominid evolution
could only have produced the dramatic shift to bipedalism if
it coincided with a complete shift to a new lifestyle that
involved the requirements of a new niche in a new ecosystem.

What is this new ecosystem and what is this new niche?

In the light of this understanding it becomes obvious what
steps a scientist should take with respect to assessing what
took place 8 to 10 mya in Africa with the emergence of this
new ecosystem. Obviously we'd want to be explicit about what
factors are in this new habitat that were not in the old
habitat. These new and different factors should introduce new
and different problems which they, our earliest hominid
ancestors, must overcome if they are to survive and
reproduce. Only after we have an explicit picture of the
ecological problems/opportunities in the new niche should be
venture to begin hypothesizing what shift in behavior best
explains the evidence.

I'm going to employ a very simple analytical method to attempt
the ends I describe in the above paragraph. I'm going to
subtract the factors in the ancestral habitat from the factors
in the new habitat. (See the "Formula" below.) The idea here
is to focus on the factors in the new environment that did not
exist in the ancestral environment. And we want to be as
explicit as possible so that we get an idea of what would have
been the implications of these new factors, and implications
of implications.

The data we will employ for this analysis is the following:

Source: http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/fac_bio/skinner/ar-
ch131/lecture5.htm

THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: The Tropical Forest biome: tends to be
hot and humid with a 70 meter high rain forest canopy with
high precipitation up to 250 cm rain annually. In this canopy
habitat there are few predators with a great variety of food
in the form of fruit, insects. Tends to be ecologically
complex with many species of life but few individuals of
anyone species; treeshrews, prosimians, pongids, NW monkeys,
most OW monkeys, mandrill baboon (but on forest floor),
orangutans and gorillas and gibbons. Group Size tends to be
quite small usually less than 20.

THE NEW HABITAT: Woodland Savannah biome: tropical arid with
seasonal rainfall and woodland along stream margins where
primates tend to live with some venturing out into savannah;
some lemurs, chimps, baboons, Macaques; grass is primary food
source with nutrients locked up in tubers and bulbs. In this
habitat there are lots of grazers, browsers and predators; the
latter hunting in social packs (lions, hyenas, dogs);
consequently the primates tend to show group defence
strategies with well defined social roles which ensure
protection of young; group sizes tend to be larger with 20 to
40 (or even up to 100) in some baboon troops

Formula: THE NEW HABITAT minus THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT equals
WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT THE NEW HABITAT

* CLIMATE *

THE NEW HABITAT: tropical arid with seasonal rainfall

Minus

THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: tends to be hot and humid with high
precipitation up to 250 cm rain annually.

equals:

What I see here is the appearance of a monsoon climate. Much
of the year, maybe even most of the year, it would have been
very similar to the climate in the Tropical Forest biome (hot,
humid, daily rain and relatively little fluctuation in these
conditions). However, for large stretchs of months every year,
upwards of six months, the rain stops. This produces
dessication (dryness) and the implications of dryness: a
tendency for temperatures to fluctuate between hot during the
day and cold during the night.

* ENVIRONMENT *

THE NEW HABITAT: woodland along stream margins. Treeless,
savanna habitat in the surrounding areas. Primates tend to
live with in woodland along stream margins where, some
venturing out into treeless savannah; some lemurs, chimps,
baboons, Macaques.

Minus

THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: Forest canopy 70 meters high. (Note:
little sunshine makes it to the ground.) This rainforest
habitat would have been extensive, continuous, and relatively
uninterrupted by treeless habitat.

equals:

Treed habitat would have been more patchy and isolated at
locations close to sources of perrenial water, lakes,
rivers, streams, areas with high ground water. (Note: the
size of these remaining patches of treed habitat would have,
firstly, varied greatly from patch to patch and, secondly,
these patches might have been larger than we tend to assume.
It was considerably wetter back then that it is now in
Eastern Africa.)

* FOOD *

THE NEW HABITAT: Grass is primary food source with nutrients
locked up in tubers and bulbs.

Minus

THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: forest canopy (extensive, continuous
and uninterrupted by treeless habitat. A great variety of food
in the form of fruit, insects.

equals:

I think there would have continued to be fruit and insects in
these remaining patches of treed habitat. However, with the
disappearance of the canopy there would have been more
sunlight hitting the ground within these patches. This would
have produced more foodstuff on the ground, such as tubers,
bulbs, and even grasses for our primate ancestors.

* PREDATION *

THE NEW HABITAT: Lots of predators. They have a tendency to
hunt social packs (lions, hyenas, dogs).

Minus

THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: Few predators

equals:

Obviously our ancestors now found themselves in a much more
hostile habitat. One that is populated by predators bigger
than they themselves.

* INTERSPECIES COMPETITION *

THE NEW HABITAT: In this habitat there are lots of grazers,
browsers. We also find some lemurs, baboons, Macaques;
primates tend to show group defence strategies with well
defined social roles which ensure protection of young; group
sizes tend to be larger with 20 to 40 (or even up to 100) in
some baboon troops.

Minus

THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: Tends to be ecologically complex with
many species of life but few individuals of anyone species;
treeshrews, prosimians, pongids, NW monkeys, most OW monkeys,
mandrill baboon (but on forest floor), orangutans and
gorillas and gibbons. Group Size tends to be quite small
usually less than 20;

equals:

This new habitat has a lot more competition from grazers and
browsers, which did not exist in the ancestral habitat. Also
we see a relative explosion of social stratetgies/adaptations
in all species in this new habitat. The competitive nature of
this new habitat tends to be relatively more group vs. group.

Comprehensive Analysis:

The next step is to put all of this together and see if we can
paint a larger picture of how these implications would have
effected our chimpanzeelike ancestors.

The following factors were precipitated out of the post
quoted above:

(1) The Emergence of Monsoon Climate: Warmer and wetter than
is the climate currently at this region of Africa but with
a distinct and severe dry season.

(2) The Emergence of Grassland Habitat: The dissipation of
the rainforest and emergence of grasslands and resulting
patchiness of the remaining forest habitat, which
persisted at locations where water was perrenially
available (rivers, streams, lakes, areas with high
ground water).

(3) The Emergence of Mosaic of Habitats: The resulting spatial
mixture of grassland and forest habitat produces an
environment that is less predictable from location to
location or from one point in time to another than had
been the rainforest habitat.

(4) The Emergence of the Ethiopian Fauna: relatively large,
intelligent, and fast moving (quadrupedal) browsing and
grazing mammals; and large, intelligent, fast moving
predatory mammals that prey upon these large browsing and
grazing mammals.

(5) The Emergence Ground based foodstuffs: With the
disappearance of the forest canopy came a shift of
foodstuff toward the ground, tubers, bulbs, and even
grasses, in and in the vicinity of the remaining patches
of forested habitat.

(6) The Emergence of Social Strategies: primates, grazers,
browsers, predators and mammals in general.

When we put all of these factors together we get a sense of a
very different habitat than the rainforest habitat. Most
notably it is the inclusion of a severe dry season that puts a
sense of foreboding in the environment. The onset of a period
of dryness may have been especially unforgiving to the
primates in this biome, including our chimpanzeelike
ancestors, in that being adapted to arboreality they were less
able to travel from one isolated forested location to another.
Consequently, if the foodstuff in at these locations--
regardless of whether it is up in trees or on the
ground--becomes depleted then this does not bode well for
their survival through the depths of the dry season.

Complicating the situational factors in the above paragraph
would have been the seasonal migration of browser, grazers,
and the predators that followed them. With the onset of
seasonal dessication we would expect these animals to
generally migrate from the more dessicate grassland and into
the treed patches. This supposition, in conjuction with the
fact that foodstuff, tubers, bulbs, and grasses, were now more
prevalent on the ground than it had been in the rainforest
habitat, indicates there would have been dramatic competition
between the primates at these treed patches and the
inmigrating browsers and grazers during these periods of
seasonal dessication. And this competition may have been
especially dramatic for our chimpanzee-like ancestors in that
they were generally more preadapted to ground conditions than
were other primates and, consequently, were more dependent on
the availability of ground based and low-branch foodstuffs
than would have been the smaller primates that could more
readily find food and avoid predators in the higher branches.

The picture that is starting to emerge in the above paragraphs
is one whereby our chimpanzee-like ancestor's fate was more
closely linked with the relative level of scarcity/abundance
at their particular treed patch. The inclusion of predators in
this scenario, most notably large and intelligent predators
that employ social hunting strategies, provides us, IMO, even
more of a reason to hypothesize this linkage. Firstly, the
strategy of primates to avoid predation involves trees as
refuge. Not only does this supposition serve as a rationale
for the conjecture that they were isolated at these treed
patches, as indicated above, but it provides us an
understanding of why the selective factors of this scenario
would have been so closely linked with the relative level of
scarcity/abundance at their particular treed patch. When the
resources at a particular treed patch (community site) became
depleted the primates therein would have little choice but to
spend more time foraging and, consequently, more time away
from the trees thus becoming more vulnerable to predators.
Predators are always looking for vulnerabilities. It seems
likely they would have noticed that the primates at one treed
patch were easier pickings and, consequently, they would have
concentrated their efforts at these treed patches.
Consequently, the primates at treed patches (community sites)
that are more depleted would be more likely to be decimated by
predation. Those at treed patches (community sites) that were
relatively more abundant--regardless of causal factors
underlying this relative abundance--would tend to be ignored
by predators.

Given these situational factors, what adaptations/behaviors
would we expect to emerge for our chimpanzee-like ancestor?
Would this or would this not indicate a shift to communal
territorialism and its associated mob oriented, stick
wielding, rock throwing aggression as indicated in my
Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis?

Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis

I started thinking about migration in the context of the
environmental assumptions of my hypothesis: seasonal
dessication, spatial polarity of resources (patches of forest
that persist near sources of perrenial water, lakes, ponds,
streams, rivers, areas of high ground water). (For a more
comprehensive description of the environmental assumptions of
this hypothesis see a post I put on this newsgroup recently
entitled: Questions Regarding Selective . . . ) Then I asked
myself what kind of migrational patterns would I expect given
these assumptions. The answer was obvious. During periods
[of] increasing dessication and resulting scarcity there
would be a tendency for all of the species in this
environment to begin to migrate toward and into these treed
havens, our ancestor's "community sites." And with the onset
of the rainy season they would migrate back out again. Then I
started thinking about how all of this would appear from the
perspective of our earliest, recently rainforest dwelling,
prehominid ancestors. Every year their patches of remaining
forest, their "community sites," got overrun with other
species. Many of these species would have competed directly
with them for food and thus would have caused the depletion
of resources at a time when these resources were increasingly
scarce, the dry season. Other herbivores may not have
directly competed with them, but all of them brought
predators with them: lions, tigers, hyenas, dogs, etc. The
negative implications are obvious. When these inmigrating
species had depleted the resources at these community sites
they would simply migrate over to other less depleted areas
(other community sites). But our tree dwelling ancestors,
being less mobile, had fewer options. They were now left
vulnerable to starvation and/or predation. Lacking the
ability to run fast, they didn't have much choice but to stay
put, wait out the predators, and hope the rains returned.
Surely their population would often have been decimated as a
result. Among a number of other adaptations, which I will get
to shortly, I predict that territorial based peskiness will
have begun to be selected among our chimpanzee-like ancestor.
This would have been a direct result of the above described
factors associated with migration. The reason I believe this
scenario predicts the relatively rapid adaptation of
territorial based peskiness behaviors among these still tree
dwelling apes is because apes that have such predisposition
will tend to harass any other animals that it percieves to be
trespassing on its territory. This will act as a deterent to
these inmigrating species who--all other things being
equal--will follow the path of least resistance to their
migratory goals. If one patch of forest is associated with
pesky apes-- regardless of the fact that these pesky apes may
be mostly harmless to them--and another patch of forest is
relatively free of pesky apes then the inmigrating
individuals would follow the path of least resistance to the
patch that is relatively free of pesky apes. More
specifically, how and why do I contend that these above
mentioned implications predict the rapid adaptation of
territorial peskiness amongst our earliest prehominid
ancestors? I think the answer to this question is fairly
obvious. The members of community sites that reduced
inmigration, even if only marginally (let's say, for example,
they reduced it by only 10%), would increase their own
community's probability of surviving through and, at one and
the same time, reduce the probability of survival of those
who reside at other, neighboring, community sites who,
lacking territorial based peskiness behaviors, would now have
to deal with more inmigration and, of course, more of the
negative implications thereof: more depletion of resources,
more predators, and more resulting decimation. This comprises
a classic group selectionist scenario: behavior that
increases one's own communities survival decreases the
survival of other communities. This is not to say that the
members of these respective communities would have had the
ability to recognize that they were competing against other
communities on a community vs. community basis. In fact it
seems unlikely--especially in the earliest years of hominid
evolution--that they would have even had the ability to
recognize that they were members of communities. Regardless
of wether they were capable of realizing it, apes that had
whatever behavior and/or morphology that would enable or
cause them to dissuade other species from migrating into
their community site would have a tremendous selective
advantage over those that lacked such. The more their
behavior dissuaded inmigration the greater the selective
advantage to their own community and the greater the
selective disadvantage to neighboring communities. It is, of
course, normal to be hesitant about asserting group selective
factors such as those that I have asserted here. But in the
context of this scenario this hesitancy is, I contend,
completely unwarranted. ?This contention is based on the
group selective implications of the two factors mentions
above, 1) the patchiness of the remaining forested habitat
which divided our ancestors up into "communities" between
which gene flow (interbreeding) was greatly reduced, and 2)
the fact that the grim reaper,seasonal dessication, focussed
on whole communities whose territorial resources at their
community sites had become, for whatever reason, deplete. So,
the selective realities of our ancestors shifted from those
of the chimpanzee lifestyle--focussed only on being
successful individuals and members of successful breeding
groups (bands, extended family units)--to those of the A'pith
lifestyle--focussed on being successful individuals and
members of successful breeding groups AND on being members of
communities that successfully effect the preservation of
resources at their community sites in the face of the
onslaught of multi-species inmigration to their community
sites. It is also important to point out that there is a
positive feedback aspect associated with inmigration.
Specifically this has to do with the herding or grouping
instincts of the inmigrating species: if one or a few members
of an inmigrating species is able to infiltrate a community
site then the probability is higher that more members of the
same species, and/or members of ecologically related species,
will follow. When this aspect is considered in conjunction
with the fact that this scenario clearly indicates the
community as the group entity that is being selected, it is
apparent, I contend, that the better a community is at
closing the gate of its ecosystem--sealing its borders--the
more likely the members of the community will survive the
grim reaper of this habitat, seasonal dessication (the dry
season). In the context of these peculiar selective factors,
we can start to ask ourselves what other adaptations, in
addition to territorial peskiness, would we expect to evolve?
This can be more explicitly delineated in the context of what
is mentioned in the above paragraph: what additional
behaviors or morphologies would cause/enable these
chimpanzee-like territorially pesky apes to be better able
and/or more inclined to "close the gate" and effectively seal
the borders of their community sites? I propose the
following: Cooperation (in the context of mob oriented
harassing behaviors): The tendency to confront and attempt to
prevent inmigrating species collectively rather than just
individually. This would involve collecting into larger
groups from neighboring and other closely situated
"properties" (see below) within a community site and
confronting inmigrating species: throwing rocks, sticks, and
generally making a big racket. As I envision it, this would
involve the same kind of emotion based behaviors that we
currently associate with a mob mentality, including sports
fanaticism. Communicativeness: The ability to communicate the
relative level of threat associated with potential
inmigrating species so that mobs can form at vulnerable
infiltration points quickly and efficiently. This also
involves such behaviors as cheering, booing, and other
behaviors that would tend to draw attention of other members
of a community to such events. Consciousness: Awareness of
the meaning of emotional outbursts that they might see or
hear in the distance so that one might be excited into being
additive to whatever mob oriented activities are taking place
in one's vicinity. Awareness of the property of others due to
the implications of the, below mentioned, selective benefits
of property oriented communal territorialism. Property
Oriented Communal Territorialism (rather than just communally
oriented territorialism): Property oriented communal
territorialism involves a community being comprised of
subgroups each of which has its associated property in the
context of the larger community site. The reason, I contend,
that we would predict property oriented territorialism is
because this would, firstly, cause them--by way of their
percieved incentive--to spread out to the different
infiltration points of the community site so that they will
be in position to better effect the collective sealing of the
community sites borders. Secondly, property oriented
territorialism will give them the percieved incentive to
defend "their" property. (Which, as indicated above, could
also include calling out to one's neighboring property
holders for assitance to effect a mob and/or responding to
one's neighbors call for assistance.) The particular group
that I envision as the entity that maintains ownership of the
different intracommunal "properties" of a community site
would be based upon the band or extended family unit, similar
in size and composition to that of the bands that extant
chimpanzees tend to form. Gamesmanship: I think it's possible
that the behavior that is indicated in this hypothesis was to
they themselves little more than a game. ?Those who were
passionate about the game achieved the survival of themselves
and their whole community (by way of driving off inmigrating
species). (In other words, we're descended from sports
enthusiasts.) Also, this scenario gives us a sense of how and
why we evolved to be so controlling of other species. It even
suggests how we began to develop our weapon oriented hunting
skills and inclination, not to mention our weapon oriented
and mob oriented approach to intraspecies conflicts (war). (I
can foresee there being "Hunting Hypothesis," variants of
this hypothesis.) Additionally, this scenario is the perfect
setup for the scenario in my larger hypothesis (which I now
realize is much more dependent upon the pre-existence of a
community), which better explains the evolution of other
hominid traits, such as our political, ideological nature,
our attentiveness to dance, art, storytelling, and other
artistic, our economic predisposition for trade, our complex
and logic oriented languages, and our pursuit of knowledge
and truth. However, the beginning of the dynamics in my
greater hypothesis (the Intraspecies Capitalism stuff which
is very difficult to explain), may have to be pushed forward
in time all the way up to the transition to homo. But this
may be a good thing in that it better coorelates to the
growth of brain capacity in the homo lineage (which, as you
know, is greatly lacking in the A'pith lineage).

[Claudius D]

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
in message news:siAHj.24973$j7.453115@news.indigo.ie...
> <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:e9c58729-
> -41e4-4611-aafa-54fd80cef0ac@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They are
>> part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise new
>> biomes don't just spring up out of the blue, they are the
>> result of changes in environments/climatic conditions.
>
> Manifest nonsense.

Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul. Your comment
shows how completely you have your head up your ass.

>
>> Here's the way speciation works. Ecosystems experience a
>> change in climate.
>
> Climate is changing now.

Delusional.

> There was a huge change 12 kya. How many new species are
> forming now? How many formed 12 kya?

Many. Look it up you nitwit.

>
>> The change in climate causes a period of extreme stress
>> whereupon a whole set of niches disappear and a whole new
>> set of niches appear.
>
> Give some examples from either now or 12 kya.

Do your own research.

>
>> The gradualistic, just-so-story approach to understanding
>> the origins of new species, an approach to which all
>> paleoanthropologist subscribe, is an archaic approach that
>> was developed in the nineteenth century when ecological
>> ignorance was the rule. We know better now.
>
> Nope. You 'know' worse.

Your a virtual retard.

>
>> Species evolve in a punctuated fashion. (If you don't know
>> what this means then I suggest doing some research on a
>> concept called punctuated equilibrium.) And, like I said
>> above, they evolve a whole host of strategies and traits at
>> once to fit the lifestyle requirements of the new niche.
>> Consequently hominid evolution could only have produced the
>> dramatic shift to bipedalism if it coincided with a
>> complete shift to a new lifestyle
>
> True.
>
>> that involved the requirements of a new niche
>
> True
>
>> in a new ecosystem.
>
> Wrong. Populations can 'opportunistically' find completely
> dfferent solution.

I suppose this is your excuse for the absurdities of your
hypothetical nonsense.

That
> happens all the time on islands (e.g. Darwin's finches) and
> occasionally those new solutions are strong enough to
> survive on the mainland.

Whacko nonsense.

>
>> What is this new ecosystem and what is this new niche?
>
> None. Non-existent.
>
> [..]
>> THE ANCESTRAL HABITAT: The Tropical Forest biome: tends to
>> be hot and humid with a 70 meter high rain forest canopy
>> with high precipitation up to 250 cm rain annually. In this
>> canopy habitat there are few predators with a great variety
>> of food in the form of fruit, insects. Tends to be
>> ecologically complex with many species of life but few
>> individuals of anyone species; treeshrews, prosimians,
>> pongids, NW monkeys, most OW monkeys, mandrill baboon (but
>> on forest floor), orangutans and gorillas and gibbons.
>> Group Size tends to be quite small usually less than 20.
>
> You need to specify the adult population (since young and
> juvenile will always be high.).

This is your fantasy. Leave me out of your delusions.

>
>> THE NEW HABITAT: Woodland Savannah biome: tropical arid
>> with seasonal rainfall and woodland along stream margins
>> where primates tend to live with some venturing out into
>> savannah; some lemurs, chimps, baboons, Macaques; grass is
>> primary food source
>
> GRASS?
>
> with nutrients locked up in
>> tubers and bulbs. In this habitat there are lots of
>> grazers, browsers and predators; the latter hunting in
>> social packs (lions, hyenas, dogs); consequently the
>> primates tend to show group defence strategies with well
>> defined social roles which ensure protection of young;
>> group sizes tend to be larger with 20 to 40 (or even up to
>> 100) in some baboon troops
>
> So what happened to this (grass-eating tree-sleeping) taxon?

Quote me directly you strawbaiting nitwit.

> It just went extinct to suit your convenience?

If only you had a point.

[Makouli]

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VnCHj.3147$p24.2389@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> in message news:siAHj.24973$j7.453115@news.indigo.ie...

[excreta]

>> It just went extinct to suit your convenience?
>
> If only you had a point.

Finally! After all that trash, a jewel....

"If only you had a point."
Dimmy --03/29/2008

=======================
"All you conventional whackjobs have is faint [sic] and
dodge." Dimmy --02/07/2008

[Paul Crowl]

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VnCHj.3147$p24.2389@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They are
>>> part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise new
>>> biomes don't just spring up out of the blue, they are the
>>> result of changes in environments/climatic conditions.
>>
>> Manifest nonsense.
>
> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul. Your comment
> shows how completely you have your head up your ass.

It's not Evolution 101. But, let's say that this
supposition or theory appears on some Evolution courses.
That does not make it true. For a start there is the small
matter of evidence.

>>> Here's the way speciation works. Ecosystems experience a
>>> change in climate.
>>
>> Climate is changing now.
>
> Delusional.

Nearly everybody agrees that things have got warmer recently.
The only debate is about the cause.

>> There was a huge change 12 kya. How many new species are
>> forming now? How many formed 12 kya?
>
> Many. Look it up you nitwit.

Wrong. The answer is 'none'. NOT a single species dates to 12
kya nor thereabouts.

>>> The change in climate causes a period of extreme stress
>>> whereupon a whole set of niches disappear and a whole new
>>> set of niches appear.
>>
>> Give some examples from either now or 12 kya.
>
> Do your own research.

This dodge impresses no one. It must disgust even you. You can
find no examples because there are none. Your theory falls at
the very first test.

>>> Species evolve in a punctuated fashion. (If you don't know
>>> what this means then I suggest doing some research on a
>>> concept called punctuated equilibrium.) And, like I said
>>> above, they evolve a whole host of strategies and traits
>>> at once to fit the lifestyle requirements of the new
>>> niche. Consequently hominid evolution could only have
>>> produced the dramatic shift to bipedalism if it coincided
>>> with a complete shift to a new lifestyle
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> that involved the requirements of a new niche
>>
>> True
>>
>>> in a new ecosystem.
>>
>> Wrong. Populations can 'opportunistically' find completely
>> dfferent solution.
>
> I suppose this is your excuse for the absurdities of your
> hypothetical nonsense.

The foolishness of your theory is obvious. What
proportion of sister species occupy different ecosystems?
Do gorillas live in a different one from chimpanzees? Or
bonobos? Do the different species of gibbon live in
different regions? Do chiff-chaffs occupy a different
ecosystem from willow warblers?

Get any book on any branch of organic life and check the
ecosystems of related species.

Your theory is based on nonsense -- even IF you think it's
Evolution 101.

Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

On Mar 30, 6:31=A0pm, "Claudius Denk"
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> What are you babbling about now?

1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and
guns. 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats. 3 Apiths never
ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree. 4 Climate
change is not happening presently. 5 Agriculture probably
stretches back hundreds of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. 7 Spears are
useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting
about 2.5 mya?
9. Then you should stop;pissing into it. 10 Speak for
yourself. I see just fine at night.
10. Uh, er. These artifacts don't come with notes attached to
them that indicate how they were actually used.
11. Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few
thousand years ago.
12. So Paul, now that you've, finally, come to accept the
fact that early hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in
treed habitat

[Claudius D]

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
in message news:LKQHj.24976$j7.453058@news.indigo.ie...
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message news:VnCHj.3147$p24.2389@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They
>>>> are part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise
>>>> new biomes don't just spring up out of the blue, they are
>>>> the result of changes in environments/climatic
>>>> conditions.
>>>
>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>
>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul. Your comment
>> shows how completely you have your head up your ass.
>
> It's not Evolution 101. But, let's say that this supposition
> or theory appears on some Evolution courses. That does not
> make it true. For a start there is the small matter of
> evidence.

To you evidence is a word.

>
>>>> Here's the way speciation works. Ecosystems experience a
>>>> change in climate.
>>>
>>> Climate is changing now.
>>
>> Delusional.
>
> Nearly everybody agrees that things have got warmer
> recently.

Science by concensus is not science.

> The only debate is about the cause.

Like you have a clue.

>
>>> There was a huge change 12 kya. How many new species are
>>> forming now? How many formed 12 kya?
>>
>> Many. Look it up you nitwit.
>
> Wrong. The answer is 'none'. NOT a single species dates to
> 12 kya nor thereabouts.

You're delusional.

>
>>>> The change in climate causes a period of extreme stress
>>>> whereupon a whole set of niches disappear and a whole new
>>>> set of niches appear.
>>>
>>> Give some examples from either now or 12 kya.
>>
>> Do your own research.
>
> This dodge impresses no one. It must disgust even you. You
> can find no examples because there are none. Your theory
> falls at the very first test.
>
>>>> Species evolve in a punctuated fashion. (If you don't
>>>> know what this means then I suggest doing some research
>>>> on a concept called punctuated equilibrium.) And, like I
>>>> said above, they evolve a whole host of strategies and
>>>> traits at once to fit the lifestyle requirements of the
>>>> new niche. Consequently hominid evolution could only have
>>>> produced the dramatic shift to bipedalism if it coincided
>>>> with a complete shift to a new lifestyle
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>> that involved the requirements of a new niche
>>>
>>> True
>>>
>>>> in a new ecosystem.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Populations can 'opportunistically' find completely
>>> dfferent solution.
>>
>> I suppose this is your excuse for the absurdities of your
>> hypothetical nonsense.
>
> The foolishness of your theory is obvious.

It's obvious you have no dispute with it.

> What proportion of sister species occupy different
> ecosystems?

What are you babbling about now?

> Do gorillas live in a different one from chimpanzees? Or
> bonobos? Do the different species of gibbon live in
> different regions? Do chiff-chaffs occupy a different
> ecosystem from willow warblers?
>
> Get any book on any branch of organic life and check the
> ecosystems of related species.
>
> Your theory is based on nonsense -- even IF you think it's
> Evolution 101.

Retard.

[Paul Crowl]

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:O9XHj.24199$Ej5.458@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They
>>>>> are part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise
>>>>> new biomes don't just spring up out of the blue, they
>>>>> are the result of changes in environments/climatic
>>>>> conditions.
>>>>
>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>>
>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.

Please tell us of two closely related species which now occupy
different ecosystems. (Since this is, according to you, all in
the basic textbooks, you should be able to find loads of
examples.)

Paul.

[Claudius D]

Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your own
flawed thinking. Tell us how your communal apes survived the
dry season. Until you address this issue there's no point in
pretending you have some greater understanding.

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
in message news:4W5Ij.24981$j7.453190@news.indigo.ie...
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message
> news:O9XHj.24199$Ej5.458@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They
>>>>>> are part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems).
>>>>>> Likewise new biomes don't just spring up out of the
>>>>>> blue, they are the result of changes in
>>>>>> environments/climatic conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.
>
> Please tell us of two closely related species which now
> occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is, according to
> you, all in the basic textbooks, you should be able to find
> loads of examples.)
>
>
> Paul.

[Paul Crowl]

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ur7Ij.17339$5K1.15027@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

> Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your
> own flawed thinking. Tell us how your communal apes survived
> the dry season. Until you address this issue there's no
> point in pretending you have some greater understanding.

Answer the question, you evasive twit.

> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> in message news:4W5Ij.24981$j7.453190@news.indigo.ie...
>> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> message
>> news:O9XHj.24199$Ej5.458@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue. They
>>>>>>> are part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems).
>>>>>>> Likewise new biomes don't just spring up out of the
>>>>>>> blue, they are the result of changes in
>>>>>>> environments/climatic conditions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.
>>
>> Please tell us of two closely related species which now
>> occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is, according to
>> you, all in the basic textbooks, you should be able to find
>> loads of examples.)
>>
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>

[claudiusde]

On Apr 2, 4:22=A0am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message
>
> news:ur7Ij.17339$5K1.15027@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your
> > own flawed thi=
nking. =A0Tell us how
> > your communal apes survived the dry season. =A0Until you
> > address this is=
sue there's no point in
> > pretending you have some greater understanding.
>
> Answer the question, you evasive twit.
>
>
>
> > "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com>
> > wrote in message
> > news:4W5Ij.24981$j7.453190@news.indigo.ie...
> >> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:O9XHj.24199$Ej5.458@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue.
> >>>>>>> =A0They are part=
and
> >>>>>>> parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). =A0Likewise new
> >>>>>>> biomes don't ju=
st
> >>>>>>> spring up out of the blue, they are the result of
> >>>>>>> changes in environments/climatic conditions.
>
> >>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>
> >>>>> Evolution 101. =A0 This is basic stuff here Paul.
>
> >> Please tell us of two closely related species which now
> >> occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is, according to
> >> you, all in the basic textbooks, you should be able to
> >> find loads of examples.)

Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your own
flawed thinking. Tell us how your communal apes survived the
dry season. Until you address this issue there's no point in
pretending you have some greater understanding.

Put up or shut up.

[Paul Crowl]

<claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:a7ed1846-a-
372-42d7-91a6-58b899a93895@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue.
>>>>>>>>> They are part and parcel to new biomes (ecosystems).
>>>>>>>>> Likewise new biomes don't just spring up out of the
>>>>>>>>> blue, they are the result of changes in
>>>>>>>>> environments/climatic conditions.
>>
>>>>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.
>>
>>>> Please tell us of two closely related species which now
>>>> occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is, according to
>>>> you, all in the basic textbooks, you should be able to
>>>> find loads of examples.)
>
> Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your
> own flawed thinking. Tell us how your communal apes survived
> the dry season. Until you address this issue there's no
> point in pretending you have some greater understanding.

Answer the question, you evasive twit.

Paul.

[Claudius D]

Your education is not my responsibility.

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
in message news:QvSIj.25013$j7.453121@news.indigo.ie...
> <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:a7ed1846-
> -a372-42d7-91a6-58b899a93895@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue.
>>>>>>>>>> They are part and parcel to new biomes
>>>>>>>>>> (ecosystems). Likewise new biomes don't just spring
>>>>>>>>>> up out of the blue, they are the result of changes
>>>>>>>>>> in environments/climatic conditions.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.
>>>
>>>>> Please tell us of two closely related species which now
>>>>> occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is, according
>>>>> to you, all in the basic textbooks, you should be able
>>>>> to find loads of examples.)
>>
>> Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your
>> own flawed thinking. Tell us how your communal apes
>> survived the dry season. Until you address this issue
>> there's no point in pretending you have some greater
>> understanding.
>
> Answer the question, you evasive twit.
>
>
> Paul.

[Paul Crowl]

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%vWIj.26821$Ch6.25523@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

> Your education is not my responsibility.

There is one primary require for a scientist -- a commitment
to honesty.

You lack it.

> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> in message news:QvSIj.25013$j7.453121@news.indigo.ie...
>> <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:a7ed-
>> 1846-a372-42d7-91a6-58b899a93895@s8g2000prg.googlegroup-
>> s.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the blue.
>>>>>>>>>>> They are part and parcel to new biomes
>>>>>>>>>>> (ecosystems). Likewise new biomes don't just
>>>>>>>>>>> spring up out of the blue, they are the result of
>>>>>>>>>>> changes in environments/climatic conditions.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.
>>>>
>>>>>> Please tell us of two closely related species which now
>>>>>> occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is, according
>>>>>> to you, all in the basic textbooks, you should be able
>>>>>> to find loads of examples.)
>>>
>>> Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of your
>>> own flawed thinking. Tell us how your communal apes
>>> survived the dry season. Until you address this issue
>>> there's no point in pretending you have some greater
>>> understanding.
>>
>> Answer the question, you evasive twit.
>>
>>
>> Paul.

[McLark]

On Apr 2, 8:35=A0pm, "Claudius Denk"
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Your education is not my responsibility.

You are only responsible for your own, Dimmy, and we've seen
what you've done with that.....

> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> in message
>
> news:QvSIj.25013$j7.453121@news.indigo.ie...

[the usual]

[claudiusde]

Okay, I honestly think you're ignorant about evolution.

On Apr 3, 12:45=A0am, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message
>
> news:%vWIj.26821$Ch6.25523@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Your education is not my responsibility.
>
> There is one primary require for a scientist -- a commitment
> to honesty.
>
> You lack it.
>
>
>
> > "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com>
> > wrote in message
> > news:QvSIj.25013$j7.453121@news.indigo.ie...
> >> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:a7ed1-
> >> 846-a372-42d7-91a6-58b899a93895@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.-
> >> com...=

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> New species don't just spring up out of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> blue. They are par=
t and
> >>>>>>>>>>> parcel to new biomes (ecosystems). Likewise new
> >>>>>>>>>>> biomes don't j=
ust
> >>>>>>>>>>> spring up out of the blue, they are the result
> >>>>>>>>>>> of changes in environments/climatic conditions.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Manifest nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Evolution 101. This is basic stuff here Paul.
>
> >>>>>> Please tell us of two closely related species which
> >>>>>> now occupy different ecosystems. (Since this is,
> >>>>>> according to you, all in the basic textbooks, you
> >>>>>> should be able to find loads of examples.)
>
> >>> Paul, you are just trying to avoid any discussion of
> >>> your own flawed thinking. =A0Tell us how your communal
> >>> apes survived the dry season. Until you address this
> >>> issue there's no point in pretending you have some
> >>> greater understanding.
>
> >> Answer the question, you evasive twit.
>
> >> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 4, 12:31=A0pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Okay, I honestly think you're ignorant about evolution.

1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and
guns. 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats. 3 Apiths never
ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree. 4 Climate
change is not happening presently. 5 Agriculture probably
stretches back hundreds of thousand if not millions of years.
6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. 7 Spears are
useless against hyena and lions.
8 ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting
about 2.5 mya?
9. Then you should stop;pissing into it. 10 Speak for
yourself. I see just fine at night.
10. Uh, er. These artifacts don't come with notes attached to
them that indicate how they were actually used.
11. Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few
thousand years ago.
12. So Paul, now that you've, finally, come to accept the
fact that early hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in
treed habitat

Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21...@thegrid.net>#1/1 Niccolo
Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
to continually make statements which most of us know are
unsupported by the data."

Dan Barnes: "..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."

Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory of it,
that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon: "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."

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 5, 5:01 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Savanna Fool keeps repeating his mantra:

You dumb lunatic, I'm not repeating MY mantra. Can't you read
English? No, you can't:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/message/64 "As I explained
to you, my English isn't very good,..."

Jim said, Lee did not (got it now?):
> > 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps
> > and guns. 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats. 3 Apiths
> > never ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree. 4
> > Climate change is not happening presently. 5 Agriculture
> > probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not
> > millions of years. 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific
> > notion. 7 Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
>
> Etc.etc.nonsense

Yep, couldn't agree more, thanks for agreeing with me. Now
explain that to Jim.

[Marc Verha]

Savanna Fool keeps repeating his mantra:

> 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and
> guns. 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats. 3 Apiths never
> ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree. 4 Climate
> change is not happening presently. 5 Agriculture probably
> stretches back hundreds of thousand if not millions of
> years. 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. 7
> Spears are useless against hyena and lions.

Etc.etc.nonsense

[Makouli]

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C41D36CE.10EB8%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...
> Savanna Fool keeps repeating his mantra:
>
>> 1 Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and
>> guns. 2 Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats. 3 Apiths never
>> ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree. 4 Climate
>> change is not happening presently. 5 Agriculture probably
>> stretches back hundreds of thousand if not millions of
>> years. 6 Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. 7
>> Spears are useless against hyena and lions.
>
> Etc.etc.nonsense

My goodness! You *are* confused. I'm wondering if this
confusion might lie at the heart of your insistence that our
ancestors were wet. Once again, that's ~Dimmy~ up there --one
of your disciples.

============================
"My lttle boy, is it so funny to repeat
this nonsense?" Marco --02/06/2008

[Marc Verha]

Op 05-04-2008 14:33, in artikel
gvidnZ8uM9857GranZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com, Makouli
<men@work.com> schreef:

> My goodness! You *are* confused. I'm wondering if this
> confusion might lie at the heart of your insistence that our
> ancestors were wet.

Grow up, my little boy.

Savanna Fantasts are stupid stupid stupid:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

Only a few Favanna Fantasts like we find at s.a.p think that a
huge brain, slow-diving skills, breath control, vocality,
small mouth & reduced chewing muscles, tongue bone descent,
longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness
& tool use, late puberty, long legs, alined body, poor
climbing, flat feet, fur loss, fatness, profuse sweating, high
needs of water, sodium, iodine, poly-unsat.fatty acids (DHA),
etc.done't show taht our ancestors got part of their food from
the water. All these features are typically seen in different
combinations in waterside & (semi)aquatic animals, but are
strikingly *absent* in savanna dwelling mammals.

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html

All the Savanna Fools have is some ostrich shells near hominid
remains, riverside butchered bones 2.5 Ma & a few present-day
kudu runners.

:-DDDDDDD

[Marc Verha]

> You dumb lunatic, I'm not repeating MY mantra.

Liaar.

Grow up, my little boy.

Savanna Fantasts are stupid stupid stupid:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

Only a few Favanna Fantasts like we find at s.a.p think that a
huge brain, slow-diving skills, breath control, vocality,
small mouth & reduced chewing muscles, tongue bone descent,
longer airway, projecting nose, poor sense of smell, handiness
& tool use, late puberty, long legs, alined body, poor
climbing, flat feet, fur loss, fatness, profuse sweating, high
needs of water, sodium, iodine, poly-unsat.fatty acids (DHA),
etc.done't show taht our ancestors got part of their food from
the water. All these features are typically seen in different
combinations in waterside & (semi)aquatic animals, but are
strikingly *absent* in savanna dwelling mammals.

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html

All the Savanna Fools have is some ostrich shells near hominid
remains, riverside butchered bones 2.5 Ma & a few present-day
kudu runners.

:-DDDDDDD

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 5, 10:52=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> > You dumb lunatic, I'm not repeating MY mantra.
>
> Liaar.

You are really that stupid? Make a direct quote. Are you too
dumb to use the forum search box?

>
> Grow up, my little boy.

Says the pervert obsessed with having little boys.

>
> Savanna Fantasts are stupid stupid stupid:

says the wetloon who thinks mountain beavers are semi-aquatic.

Here is what a professional has to say:

Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture by
Cameron M. Smith PhD, Department of Archaeology "If you were
among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of time
listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the
following points.
1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and,
despite what was presented at this lecture, it has been
found to be severely wanting. AAT is not a 'credible
alternative theory'; it is what is known as a post-hoc
accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does not
really have a coherent body of theory, only a few
disassociated (non)explanations for a few biological
characteristics of the genus Homo. People should be aware
that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable alternative' as
claimed at the lecture.
2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory
device. It is poorly regarded because it has been examined
and found to be invalid. It is not poorly regarded because
of some scientific cover-up or paranoia. It is not poorly
regarded because scientists cannot accept change.
Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it has
been pointed out that science is the worst place to try to
hide anything because fraud will be exposed through
experiment. AAT is simply a theory that has been evaluated
(and ditched) by most serious anthropologists.
3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to Simon
Fraser University, and the sponsoring hosts. How this
pop/crypto/science 'theory' was given equal billing with
real research efforts is beyond
me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of
lectures dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute
of Humanities' 'Old Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A
Darwinian Perspective on Our Past, Present and Future'
lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when examined for
internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor
Erich von Daniken to speak about spaceship depictions in
Maya tombs. Here's a point to consider when evaluating
AAT. I did not learn this point from some academic
overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned it while
trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya,
investigating some of the most important early hominid
sites in the world, one of our overriding concerns --
while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a net --
was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you
under to drown before you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with
early hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not
explain what advantages early humans would have gained by
spending time in crocodile-populated waters; an
environment where they could not make fires, throw stones
or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope whatever of
escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best
be described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good
images of babies swimming freely in a pool, shown in the
AAT video, have nothing to do with the real situation of
predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or Turkana
people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs
swim in that lake. There's much else to say, but I have a
650-word limit. Please keep in mind, the 'savanna
hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but that
does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated
because of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's
opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion'. Opinion
is not the same thing as scientific theory. The damage of
this lecture was to those who came to the lecture
expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was a viable
body of theory. It is not, and it does not deserve that
label." Cheers, Cameron M. Smith

[Spiznet]

Weak little humans would survive about 1-4 hours on the bank
of some river. This is where all the strongest animals go to
drink on a daily basis!?!

This would force them to compete with all the water predators,
all the land predators, and they are basically helpless
(weaker than chimps).

On Apr 6, 12:03=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Savanna Fools are obviously too stupid to give us 1 single
> little argument=

> against the waterside theory:
>
> Savanna Fantast quoting other SF:
>
> > Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest
> > Lecture by Cameron M. Smith PhD, Department of Archaeology
> > "If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good
> > amount of time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine
> > Morgan recently, regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be
> > advised of the following points.
> > 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed,
> > and, despite what was presented at this lecture, it has
> > been found to be severely wanting. AAT is not a
> > 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is known as a
> > post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT
> > does not really have a coherent body of theory, only a
> > few disassociated (non)explanations for a few
> > biological characteristics of the genus Homo. People
> > should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a
> > viable alternative' as claimed at the lecture.
> > 2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory
> > device. It is poorly regarded because it has been
> > examined and found to be invalid. It is not poorly
> > regarded because of some scientific cover-up or
> > paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists
> > cannot accept change. Scientific knowledge does change,
> > all the time, and it has been pointed out that science
> > is the worst place to try to hide anything because
> > fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is simply
> > a theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most
> > serious anthropologists.
> > 3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to
> > Simon Fraser University, and the sponsoring hosts. How
> > this pop/crypto/science 'theory' was given equal
> > billing with real research efforts is beyond
> > me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of
> > lectures dealing with darwinian processes (The
> > Institute of Humanities' 'Old Minds and Bodies in New
> > Worlds: A Darwinian Perspective on Our Past, Present
> > and Future' lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles
> > when examined for internal darwinian logic.
> > Unfortunately, having the speaker lecture on AAT was
> > akin to having SFU sponsor Erich von Daniken to speak
> > about spaceship depictions in Maya tombs. Here's a
> > point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn
> > this point from some academic overlord with an
> > anti-AAT agenda; I learned it while trying to avoid
> > becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I spent
> > several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya,
> > investigating some of the most important early hominid
> > sites in the world, one of our overriding concerns --
> > while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a net
> > -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A
> > croc can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and
> > drag you under to drown before you have time to
> > screech for help. The fact that crocodiles co-existed
> > in time and space with early hominids is a colossal
> > blow to AAT, which does not explain what advantages
> > early humans would have gained by spending time in
> > crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they
> > could not make fires, throw stones or sticks, use
> > other tools, or have any hope whatever of escaping the
> > most common predator. A troop of early hominids wading
> > in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
> > described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good
> > images of babies swimming freely in a pool, shown in
> > the AAT video, have nothing to do with the real
> > situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the
> > Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake
> > Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim in that lake.
> > There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit.
> > Please keep in mind, the 'savanna hypothesis' has
> > indeed been largely abandoned, but that does NOT
> > validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated
> > because of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's
> > opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion'.
> > Opinion is not the same thing as scientific theory.
> > The damage of this lecture was to those who came to
> > the lecture expecting, and possibly believing, that
> > AAT was a viable body of theory. It is not, and it
> > does not deserve that label." Cheers, Cameron M. Smith

[claudiusde]

On Apr 6, 9:48=A0am, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
> Weak little humans would survive about 1-4 hours on the bank
> of some river. This is where all the strongest animals go to
> drink on a daily basis!?!

If there were trees in the vicinity that they could climb up
into would they not be safer at such a location than at
locations far from trees?

Answer the question you evasive twit.

[Marc Verha]

Op 06-04-2008 18:48, in artikel 88b2b5f4-e7bb-4615-bb30-3940c-
efada6b@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, spiznet
<mark@spiznet.com> schreef:

> Weak little humans would survive about 1-4 hours on the bank
> of some river. This is where all the strongest animals go to
> drink on a daily basis!?!
>
> This would force them to compete with all the water
> predators, all the land predators, and they are basically
> helpless (weaker than chimps).

??
:-D
Is this nonsense meant to be some anti-AAT argument?? Grow up
& inform, my little boy.

> On Apr 6, 12:03 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Savanna Fools are obviously too stupid to give us 1 single
>> little argument against the waterside theory:
>>
>> Savanna Fantast quoting other SF:
>>
>>> Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest
>>> Lecture by Cameron M. Smith PhD, Department of Archaeology
>>> "If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good
>>> amount of time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine
>>> Morgan recently, regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be
>>> advised of the following points.
>>> 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed,
>>> and, despite what was presented at this lecture, it has
>>> been found to be severely wanting. AAT is not a
>>> 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is known as a
>>> post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT
>>> does not really have a coherent body of theory, only a
>>> few disassociated (non)explanations for a few
>>> biological characteristics of the genus Homo. People
>>> should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a
>>> viable alternative' as claimed at the lecture.
>>> 2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory
>>> device. It is poorly regarded because it has been
>>> examined and found to be invalid. It is not poorly
>>> regarded because of some scientific cover-up or
>>> paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists
>>> cannot accept change. Scientific knowledge does change,
>>> all the time, and it has been pointed out that science
>>> is the worst place to try to hide anything because
>>> fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is simply
>>> a theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most
>>> serious anthropologists.
>>> 3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to
>>> Simon Fraser University, and the sponsoring hosts. How
>>> this pop/crypto/science 'theory' was given equal
>>> billing with real research efforts is beyond
>>> me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of
>>> lectures dealing with darwinian processes (The
>>> Institute of Humanities' 'Old Minds and Bodies in New
>>> Worlds: A Darwinian Perspective on Our Past, Present
>>> and Future' lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles
>>> when examined for internal darwinian logic.
>>> Unfortunately, having the speaker lecture on AAT was
>>> akin to having SFU sponsor Erich von Daniken to speak
>>> about spaceship depictions in Maya tombs. Here's a
>>> point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn
>>> this point from some academic overlord with an
>>> anti-AAT agenda; I learned it while trying to avoid
>>> becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I spent
>>> several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya,
>>> investigating some of the most important early hominid
>>> sites in the world, one of our overriding concerns --
>>> while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a net
>>> -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A
>>> croc can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and
>>> drag you under to drown before you have time to
>>> screech for help. The fact that crocodiles co-existed
>>> in time and space with early hominids is a colossal
>>> blow to AAT, which does not explain what advantages
>>> early humans would have gained by spending time in
>>> crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they
>>> could not make fires, throw stones or sticks, use
>>> other tools, or have any hope whatever of escaping the
>>> most common predator. A troop of early hominids wading
>>> in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be
>>> described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good
>>> images of babies swimming freely in a pool, shown in
>>> the AAT video, have nothing to do with the real
>>> situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the
>>> Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake
>>> Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim in that lake.
>>> There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit.
>>> Please keep in mind, the 'savanna hypothesis' has
>>> indeed been largely abandoned, but that does NOT
>>> validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated
>>> because of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's
>>> opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion'.
>>> Opinion is not the same thing as scientific theory.
>>> The damage of this lecture was to those who came to
>>> the lecture expecting, and possibly believing, that
>>> AAT was a viable body of theory. It is not, and it
>>> does not deserve that label." Cheers, Cameron M. Smith

[Marc Verha]

Savanna Fools are obviously too stupid to give us 1 single
little argument against the waterside theory:

Savanna Fantast quoting other SF:
> Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture
> by Cameron M. Smith PhD, Department of Archaeology "If you
> were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of
> time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
> regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the
> following points.
> 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and,
> despite what was presented at this lecture, it has been
> found to be severely wanting. AAT is not a 'credible
> alternative theory'; it is what is known as a post-hoc
> accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does not
> really have a coherent body of theory, only a few
> disassociated (non)explanations for a few biological
> characteristics of the genus Homo. People should be aware
> that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable alternative' as
> claimed at the lecture.
> 2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory
> device. It is poorly regarded because it has been
> examined and found to be invalid. It is not poorly
> regarded because of some scientific cover-up or paranoia.
> It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot
> accept change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the
> time, and it has been pointed out that science is the
> worst place to try to hide anything because fraud will be
> exposed through experiment. AAT is simply a theory that
> has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
> anthropologists.
> 3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to
> Simon Fraser University, and the sponsoring hosts. How
> this pop/crypto/science 'theory' was given equal billing
> with real research efforts is beyond
> me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of
> lectures dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute
> of Humanities' 'Old Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A
> Darwinian Perspective on Our Past, Present and Future'
> lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when examined
> for internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
> speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor
> Erich von Daniken to speak about spaceship depictions in
> Maya tombs. Here's a point to consider when evaluating
> AAT. I did not learn this point from some academic
> overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned it while
> trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When
> I spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana,
> Kenya, investigating some of the most important early
> hominid sites in the world, one of our overriding
> concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
> with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the
> shallows. A croc can be on you, crush your legs in its
> jaws, and drag you under to drown before you have time
> to screech for help. The fact that crocodiles co-existed
> in time and space with early hominids is a colossal blow
> to AAT, which does not explain what advantages early
> humans would have gained by spending time in
> crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they
> could not make fires, throw stones or sticks, use other
> tools, or have any hope whatever of escaping the most
> common predator. A troop of early hominids wading in a
> lakeshore or swampy forest would best be described as a
> crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies
> swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have
> nothing to do with the real situation of predator
> avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people
> who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim
> in that lake. There's much else to say, but I have a
> 650-word limit. Please keep in mind, the 'savanna
> hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but that
> does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated
> because of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's
> opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion'.
> Opinion is not the same thing as scientific theory. The
> damage of this lecture was to those who came to the
> lecture expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was
> a viable body of theory. It is not, and it does not
> deserve that label." Cheers, Cameron M. Smith

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 6, 4:39=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Obvously, the Savanna Fools have 0 arguments against AAT:

Obvously, the Wetloon Fools have 0 arguments for AAT.

Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture by
Cameron M. Smith PhD, Department of Archaeology "If you were
among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of time
listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the
following points.
1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and,
despite what was presented at this lecture, it has been
found to be severely wanting. AAT is not a 'credible
alternative theory'; it is what is known as a post-hoc
accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does not
really have a coherent body of theory, only a few
disassociated (non)explanations for a few biological
characteristics of the genus Homo. People should be aware
that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable alternative' as
claimed at the lecture.
2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory
device. It is poorly regarded because it has been examined
and found to be invalid. It is not poorly regarded because
of some scientific cover-up or paranoia. It is not poorly
regarded because scientists cannot accept change.
Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it has
been pointed out that science is the worst place to try to
hide anything because fraud will be exposed through
experiment. AAT is simply a theory that has been evaluated
(and ditched) by most serious anthropologists.
3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to Simon
Fraser University, and the sponsoring hosts. How this
pop/crypto/science 'theory' was given equal billing with
real research efforts is beyond
me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of
lectures dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute
of Humanities' 'Old Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A
Darwinian Perspective on Our Past, Present and Future'
lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when examined for
internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor
Erich von Daniken to speak about spaceship depictions in
Maya tombs. Here's a point to consider when evaluating
AAT. I did not learn this point from some academic
overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned it while
trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I
spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya,
investigating some of the most important early hominid
sites in the world, one of our overriding concerns --
while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a net --
was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc
can be on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you
under to drown before you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with
early hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not
explain what advantages early humans would have gained by
spending time in crocodile-populated waters; an
environment where they could not make fires, throw stones
or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope whatever of
escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best
be described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good
images of babies swimming freely in a pool, shown in the
AAT video, have nothing to do with the real situation of
predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or Turkana
people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs
swim in that lake. There's much else to say, but I have a
650-word limit. Please keep in mind, the 'savanna
hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but that
does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated
because of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's
opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion'. Opinion
is not the same thing as scientific theory. The damage of
this lecture was to those who came to the lecture
expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was a viable
body of theory. It is not, and it does not deserve that
label." Cheers, Cameron M. Smith

[Spiznet]

On Apr 6, 1:52=A0pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Apr 6, 9:48=A0am, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
> > Weak little humans would survive about 1-4 hours on the
> > bank of some river. This is where all the strongest
> > animals go to drink on a daily basis!?!
>
> If there were trees in the vicinity that they could climb up
> into would they not be safer at such a location than at
> locations far from trees?
>
> Answer the question you evasive twit.

Do you think that trees would be located near a water source,
hmm, maybe so: ...so your 8my apiths could have been defending
against not just herbivores but also predators and especially
water based predators...hmmm... you might be onto a new phase
for your "theory"!!?!?!

-spiznet

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 6, 8:39=A0pm, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:52=A0pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 9:48=A0am, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Weak little humans would survive about 1-4 hours on the
> > > bank of some river. This is where all the strongest
> > > animals go to drink on a daily basis!?!
>
> > If there were trees in the vicinity that they could climb
> > up into would they not be safer at such a location than at
> > locations far from trees?
>
> > Answer the question you evasive twit.
>
> Do you think that trees would be located near a water
> source, hmm, maybe so: ...so your 8my apiths could have been
> defending against not just herbivores but also predators and
> especially water based predators...hmmm... you might be onto
> a new phase for your "theory"!!?!?!
>
> -spiznet

Claud needs help.

[Marc Verha]

Obvously, the Savanna Fools have 0 arguments against AAT:

Op 07-04-2008 01:01, in artikel b317bab-64d5-4998-bb4e-127a10-
426fe5@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Apr 6, 2:29 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>> ??
>
> Message-ID:
> <1124565262.379006.215260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Jason Eshleman: "You are asking for someone to contradict
> something that you've not made a case for. You are asking
> someone to prove a negative. This isn't science, though I
> suspect you don't know what science is and as such will
> continue your mentally ill diatribes."
>
> Message-ID: <I%ENe.266469$5V4.165741@pd7tw3no> Rick Wagler:
> "Saying this does not 'contradict' hominids living elsewhere
> only indicates you have mastered one of the great logical
> fallacies. You can't prove a negative so its no use asking.
> What you need to do is get positive evidence for coastal,
> Indian Ocean hominds. Your inability to understand this
> basic point is what will forever confine you to the lunatic
> fringe."
>
> http://www.aquaticape.org/whataat.html Jim Moore: "Marc
> Verhaegen now also often takes umbrage if you critique an
> AAT/H claim that he doesn't make himself. But then taking
> umbrage seems to be a specialty with him; his online method
> tends toward gratuitous insults, often as the sole content
> of his newsgroup posts, and continually reposting the same,
> non-responsive, paragraphs (earning him the nickname
> "macro-man" after the usual technique for doing that), and,
> starting from his very first online post in 1998, comparing
> his position to Wegener, Galileo, etc. These methods
> certainly don't help his argument, instead placing his
> online newsgroup contributions in the realm of the netloon."

[Spiznet]

On Apr 7, 12:06=A0am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 8:39=A0pm, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 1:52=A0pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 9:48=A0am, spiznet <m...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Weak little humans would survive about 1-4 hours on
> > > > the bank of some=

> > > > river. This is where all the strongest animals go to
> > > > drink on a dail=
y
> > > > basis!?!
>
> > > If there were trees in the vicinity that they could
> > > climb up into would they not be safer at such a location
> > > than at locations far from trees?
>
> > > Answer the question you evasive twit.
>
> > Do you think that trees would be located near a water
> > source, hmm, maybe so: ...so your 8my apiths could have
> > been defending against not just herbivores but also
> > predators and especially water based predators...hmmm...
> > you might be onto a new phase for your "theory"!!?!?!
>
> > -spiznet
>
> Claud needs help.

Ok, Claud, here's the way it worked.

The apiths set up near the waterhole, and there were plenty
of trees. They first set about killing off all the large
crocs and other bad aquatic predators. Then they could get
back and forth to the water from the trees without constant
threat of sudden death. They stayed in the trees. Million of
years later they eventually chased away all the land
predators from the area as well, by threats of force and
stick waving and stabbing.

After this, they set themselves up as masters of the
watersource, and had their pick of scaring or killing any
herbivores that came there to drink. As the monsoon climate
worsened, they had to run these herbivores farther away from
the water, thus our 2mya running skills.

-spiznet

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 7, 2:13=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> SF quoting Dr.Smith who repeats his prejudices but says
> nohting:

http://tinyurl.com/y44rnt

Davidson, I. & Solomon, S. (1990) Was OH 27 the victim of a
crocodile attack?. In Solomon, S., Davidson, I. & Watson, D.
(eds) Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Archaeological &
Palaeontological Studies from Europe, Africa & Oceania. Tempus
2. Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Queensland. 198 - 206.

[Marc Verha]

SF quoting Mr.Smith who repeats his prejudices but says
nohting:

Op 07-04-2008 03:35, in artikel d10eb44c-1809-4ad9-93ec-5083b-
b148e7e@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Apr 6, 4:39 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Obvously, the Savanna Fools have 0 arguments against AAT:
>
> Obvously, the Wetloon Fools have 0 arguments for AAT.
>
> Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture
> by Cameron M. Smith PhD, Department of Archaeology "If you
> were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of
> time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
> regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the
> following points.
> 1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and,
> despite what was presented at this lecture, it has been
> found to be severely wanting. AAT is not a 'credible
> alternative theory'; it is what is known as a post-hoc
> accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does not
> really have a coherent body of theory, only a few
> disassociated (non)explanations for a few biological
> characteristics of the genus Homo. People should be aware
> that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable alternative' as
> claimed at the lecture.
> 2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory
> device. It is poorly regarded because it has been
> examined and found to be invalid. It is not poorly
> regarded because of some scientific cover-up or paranoia.
> It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot
> accept change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the
> time, and it has been pointed out that science is the
> worst place to try to hide anything because fraud will be
> exposed through experiment. AAT is simply a theory that
> has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
> anthropologists.
> 3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to
> Simon Fraser University, and the sponsoring hosts. How
> this pop/crypto/science 'theory' was given equal billing
> with real research efforts is beyond
> me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of
> lectures dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute
> of Humanities' 'Old Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A
> Darwinian Perspective on Our Past, Present and Future'
> lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when examined
> for internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
> speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor
> Erich von Daniken to speak about spaceship depictions in
> Maya tombs. Here's a point to consider when evaluating
> AAT. I did not learn this point from some academic
> overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned it while
> trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When
> I spent several months with a team at Lake Turkana,
> Kenya, investigating some of the most important early
> hominid sites in the world, one of our overriding
> concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish
> with a net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the
> shallows. A croc can be on you, crush your legs in its
> jaws, and drag you under to drown before you have time
> to screech for help. The fact that crocodiles co-existed
> in time and space with early hominids is a colossal blow
> to AAT, which does not explain what advantages early
> humans would have gained by spending time in
> crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they
> could not make fires, throw stones or sticks, use other
> tools, or have any hope whatever of escaping the most
> common predator. A troop of early hominids wading in a
> lakeshore or swampy forest would best be described as a
> crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies
> swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have
> nothing to do with the real situation of predator
> avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people
> who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim
> in that lake. There's much else to say, but I have a
> 650-word limit. Please keep in mind, the 'savanna
> hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but that
> does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated
> because of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's
> opinion, and everyone is entitled to an opinion'.
> Opinion is not the same thing as scientific theory. The
> damage of this lecture was to those who came to the
> lecture expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was
> a viable body of theory. It is not, and it does not
> deserve that label." Cheers, Cameron M. Smith