Let's get our habitat terminology right

[claudiusde]

I am getting increasingly concerned about the loose use of the
term "aquatic" by human evolutionists. Aquatic to an ecologist
means in water. I suspect that many people using the term
"Aquatic" actually mean what ecologists term "Littoral", i.e.
beach with trees, usually clumped around some sort of water
source. When I read the term "aquatic" anywhere, I try to find
out if the writer knows that the type of beach habitat
adjacent to forests, is most likely to be "littoral" not
aquatic. Aquatic habitat could only be freely entered when
humans had boats. A few human cultures obviously have managed
to evolve social groups of males fishing over the sea. But I
just can't believe that any ape-human could live in the waters
of an ocean or sea rather than on or near a beach or in the
littoral forest nearby.

Let's get our habitat terminology right.

[Marc Verha]

Op 02-04-2008 06:19, in artikel 2cbeb173-6e7f-49bd-8860-2f390-
752aabd@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net>
schreef:

> I am getting increasingly concerned about the loose use of
> the term "aquatic" by human evolutionists. Aquatic to an
> ecologist means in water. I suspect that many people using
> the term "Aquatic" actually mean what ecologists term
> "Littoral",

Of course, we all know that (except the Savanna Followers, of
course), but Hardy's 1960 paper was called "Was Man more
aquatic in the past?" ("more") & Elaine Morgan changed
Morris's "naked ape" into "aquatic ape".

> i.e. beach with trees, usually clumped around some sort of
> water source. When I read the term "aquatic" anywhere,
> I try to find out if the writer knows that the type of
> beach habitat adjacent to forests, is most likely to be
> "littoral" not aquatic. Aquatic habitat could only be
> freely entered when humans had boats.

Not at all, see human physiology, eg, our breath-hold & diving
skills etc.etc. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

> A few human cultures obviously have managed to evolve
> social groups of males fishing over the sea. But I just
> can't believe that any ape-human could live in the waters
> of an ocean or sea rather than on or near a beach or in
> the littoral forest nearby. Let's get our habitat
> terminology right.

:-)
Well-done, Denk, excellent parody.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 2, 3:14=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

> :-)
> Well-done, Denk, excellent parody.

Squeaking loons

[Rmacfarl]

On Apr 3, 11:46=A0am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:14=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > :-)
> > Well-done, Denk, excellent parody.
>
> Squeaking loons

McGinn trying to educate others on the misuse of language? Oh,
the irony...

[claudiusde]

On Apr 2, 3:14=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 02-04-2008 06:19, in artikel 2cbeb173-6e7f-49bd-8860-2f3-
> 90752a...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
> schreef:
>
> > I am getting increasingly concerned about the loose use of
> > the term "aquatic" by human evolutionists. Aquatic to an
> > ecologist means in water. I suspect that many people using
> > the term "Aquatic" actually mean what ecologists term
> > "Littoral",
>
> Of course, we all know that

We all know you're whacked.

Like conventional dimwits you don't have a hypothesis you have
a habitat and a mistitled one at that.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 6, 4:47=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Savanna Fools' "arguments":

Wetloon arguments:

Message-ID: <C3FDE43F.FC0B%m_verhaegen@skynet.be> Why do you
believe the "spears" could not have been used for fish?

[Marc Verha]

Savanna Fools' "arguments":

>> We all know you're whacked.
>>
>> Like conventional dimwits you don't have a hypothesis you
>> have a habitat and a mistitled one at that.
>
> How do you like that, Marco? Even the village idiot thinks
> you've got a screw loose. Maybe there's something to it, eh?

IOW, these idiots have nothing, zero, nada.

:-D

[Lee Olsen]

Wetape fool:

TREE 2002 Page 213-14: "... capybaras Hydrochoerus
hydrochaeris and mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both
these semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."

[Marc Verha]

Savann Fool:

> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> for fish?

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 7, 3:39 pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

>
> Were australopiths wetland waders?

Silly fool, of course not.

FYI:

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/december/hominids.htm Dr
Julia Lee-Thorp "The important point is that we now know that
all of these hominids were willing to eat C4 resources that
are generally ignored by our primate cousins, the chimpanzees,
gorillas, and orangutans. Chimpanzees, for instance, stick to
C3 'forest' foods even when grasses or grass-eating animals
are abundant. It seems that hominids early on became dietary
generalists who broadened their diets and thus their resource
base. This may have been the seminal step in the development
of the hominid lineage. It makes sense when one considers that
global climates changed between about 4 - 1.8 millions years
ago, causing African forests to be replaced by woodlands and
grasslands."

>
> Our extensive survey of the literature [17]

ROFL

First these amateurs claim they did an "extensive survey" of
the literature... Verhaegen et al. (2002) Page 213: "Our
extensive survey of the literature [17]" (Who is "[17]"? They
cite themselves, who else would made such a claim)

Of course their survey was proven not to be "extensive" at all
as demonstrated by this totally false statement:

TREE 2002 Page 213-14: "... capybaras Hydrochoerus
hydrochaeris and mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both
these semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."

Anyone even remotely familiar with the literature knows
mountain beavers are not semi-aquatic and any survey, let
alone "extensive survery" would find this.

These amateur incompetents then go on to,
"Acknowledgements" (page
216), thank "four anonymous referees for corrections and
discussions" who didn't know anymore about biology than
the authors themselves or they would have picked up on
such an obvious error. Talk about incompetence confirmed
by more incompetence, this is sloppy research at its
worst. The four anaonymous referees proved the journal
TREE uses amateurs to peer review their papers.

MV et al. then go on to claim: "suggests that most hominids
might have dwelt in 'wet' rather than 'dry' habitats, and this
has been confirmed by recent discoveries [14,18,19]."

A non-extensive "survey" of sloppy work then leads to the
conclusion that "A.robustus =3D wading"? This isn't even a
good example of spiritual imagination. "Garbage in =3D garbage
out" is the most parsimonious conclusion for this despicable
opinion paper:

M Verhaegen, P-F Puech & S Munro 2002 Aquarboreal ancestors?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-7

>suggests that most hominids might have dwelt in OEwet=B9
>rather than OEdry=B9 habitats, and this has b=
een
> confirmed by recent discoveries [14,18,19].

C4 is savanna/grasslands, wetloon.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 21, 3:49=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Op 21-04-2008 06:04, in artikel
> 480C125F.7BF92...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Savann Fool:
> >>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> >>> for fish?
> > Marc, this was answered by Gerrit and you even thanked him
> > for the explanation.
>
> Of course: then why does this Savanna Fool repeats that
> question?? SFs are stupid stupid stupid.

Of course: why did this wetloon amateur make the silly comment
in the first place???

Because it demonstrates Verhaegin is stupid stupid stupid.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 21, 9:17=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> SF can't discern between question & comment:

Only an idiot wetloon would make such a comment with a "?"
mark at the end of the sentence. You do know what this "?" is
in English, don't you?

[Marc Verha]

SF can't discern between question & comment:

Op 21-04-2008 14:47, in artikel d5ec82db-cb1b-4613-a554-6419f-
25c3ce0@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@hotmail.com> schreef:

> On Apr 21, 3:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> Op 21-04-2008 06:04, in artikel
>> 480C125F.7BF92...@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
>> <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>>
>>> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>>> Savann Fool:
>>>>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
>>>>> for fish?
>>> Marc, this was answered by Gerrit and you even thanked him
>>> for the explanation.
>>
>> Of course: then why does this Savanna Fool repeats that
>> question?? SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
>
> Of course: why did this wetloon amateur make the silly
> comment in the first place???
>
> Because it demonstrates Verhaegin is stupid stupid stupid.

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Op 21-04-2008 06:04, in artikel
> 480C125F.7BF92205@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> >> Savann Fool:
> >>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> >>> for fish?
>
> > Marc, this was answered by Gerrit and you even thanked him
> > for the explanation.
>
> Of course: then why does this Savanna Fool repeats that
> question?? SFs are stupid stupid stupid.

He didn't. It was YOUR question. YOU are the one who is
apparently too stupid to keep track. Below is the google link
where YOU asked the question, followed by Gerrit patiently
explaining things to you

And YOU thanked him.

"OK, thanks for the details." - YOUR response to Gerrit.

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg-
> > /ff6946f61060f7e1?dmo de=source
> >
> > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:52:09 +0100 Subject: Re:
> > Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au Palé olithique ancien
> > (Re: "carnivore tooth marks" From: Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
> > [...] Op 12-03-2008 21:57, in artikel
> > 9tggt3p3e2d8ne20kr8agcde6jl5nns...@4ax.com, Gerrit
> > Hanenburg <G.Hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> schreef: [...]
> >
> >>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> >>> for fish?
> >
> >> Because "They were highly sophisticated long-distance
> >> throwing weapons, which reflect an extraordinary skill in
> >> wood-working, to produce well-balanced ballistic
> >> characteristics. A test reconstruction indicates a range
> >> of up to 60 m with good penetrative power" (Thieme
> >> 2005). A fishing spear, as a short range weapon, has
> >> quite different characteristics (and requires other
> >> features such as barbs in order to prevent the catch
> >> from slipping).
> >
> > OK, thanks for the details. [...]

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Op 21-04-2008 06:04, in artikel
> 480C125F.7BF92205@hotmMOVEail.com, Rich Travsky
> <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
>
> > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> >> Savann Fool:
> >>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> >>> for fish?
>
> > Marc, this was answered by Gerrit and you even thanked him
> > for the explanation.
>
> Of course: then why does this Savanna Fool repeats that
> question?? SFs are stupid stupid stupid.

He isn't repeating the question. YOU wrote this

Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been
used for fish?

It's in the google link below. YOU wrote it.

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg-
> > /ff6946f61060f7e1?dmo de=source
> >
> > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:52:09 +0100 Subject: Re:
> > Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au Palé olithique ancien
> > (Re: "carnivore tooth marks" From: Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
> > [...] Op 12-03-2008 21:57, in artikel
> > 9tggt3p3e2d8ne20kr8agcde6jl5nns...@4ax.com, Gerrit
> > Hanenburg <G.Hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> schreef: [...]
> >
> >>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> >>> for fish?
> >
> >> Because "They were highly sophisticated long-distance
> >> throwing weapons, which reflect an extraordinary skill in
> >> wood-working, to produce well-balanced ballistic
> >> characteristics. A test reconstruction indicates a range
> >> of up to 60 m with good penetrative power" (Thieme
> >> 2005). A fishing spear, as a short range weapon, has
> >> quite different characteristics (and requires other
> >> features such as barbs in order to prevent the catch
> >> from slipping).
> >
> > OK, thanks for the details. [...]

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> SF:
> > Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
> > for fish?
>
> Did I say that, my little boy??

Yes, you did.

> Are you really too stupid to see the difference between an
> affirmative sentence & a question??
>
> SFs are stupid stupid stupid.

Marc, you can't even follow posts. That's because you're
stupid.

*You* asked the question, Gerrit explained it to you, and
*you* thanked him for it.

Here's the post with link:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/ff6-
946f61060f7e1?dmode=source

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:52:09 +0100 Subject: Re:
Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au Palé olithique ancien (Re:
"carnivore tooth marks" From: Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
[...] Op 12-03-2008 21:57, in artikel
9tggt3p3e2d8ne20kr8agcde6jl5nns...@4ax.com, Gerrit Hanenburg
<G.Hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net> schreef: [...]

>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been used
>> for fish?

> Because "They were highly sophisticated long-distance
> throwing weapons, which reflect an extraordinary skill in
> wood-working, to produce well-balanced ballistic
> characteristics. A test reconstruction indicates a range of
> up to 60 m with good penetrative power" (Thieme
> 2005). A fishing spear, as a short range weapon, has quite
> different characteristics (and requires other features
> such as barbs in order to prevent the catch from
> slipping).

OK, thanks for the details. [...]

As you can see, you didn't know at all about the matter.

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> SF:
> >>>>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been
> >>>>> used for fish?
>
> SF:
> >>> Marc, this was answered by Gerrit and you even thanked
> >>> him for the explanation.
>
> >> Of course: then why does this Savanna Fool repeats that
> >> question?? SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
>
> SF:
> > He didn't. It was YOUR question. YOU are the one who is
> > apparently too stupid to keep track. Below is the google
> > link where YOU asked the question, followed by Gerrit
> > patiently explaining things to you And YOU thanked him.
> > "OK, thanks for the details." - YOUR response to Gerrit.
>
> Of course: then why does this Savanna Fool repeats that
> question?? SFs are stupid stupid stupid.

Marc, it was YOUR question. See below. That makes you the
Savanna fool.

> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/m-
> >>> sg/ff6946f61060f7e1?d mo de=source
> >>>
> >>> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:52:09 +0100 Subject: Re:
> >>> Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au Palé olithique ancien
> >>> (Re: "carnivore tooth marks" From: Marc Verhaegen
> >>> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> Newsgroups:
> >>> sci.anthropology.paleo [...] Op 12-03-2008 21:57, in
> >>> artikel 9tggt3p3e2d8ne20kr8agcde6jl5nns...@4ax.com,
> >>> Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
> >>> schreef: [...]
> >>>
> >>>>> Why do you believe the "spears" could not have been
> >>>>> used for fish?
> >>>
> >>>> Because "They were highly sophisticated long-distance
> >>>> throwing weapons, which reflect an extraordinary skill
> >>>> in wood-working, to produce well-balanced ballistic
> >>>> characteristics. A test reconstruction indicates a
> >>>> range of up to 60 m with good penetrative power"
> >>>> (Thieme
> >>>> 2005). A fishing spear, as a short range weapon, has
> >>>> quite different characteristics (and requires
> >>>> other features such as barbs in order to prevent
> >>>> the catch from slipping).
> >>>
> >>> OK, thanks for the details. [...]