claudiusde
Sat, Apr-12-08, 06:17
On Apr 11, 6:36 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote in message
> > On Apr 7, 3:32 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Apr 7, 12:35 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> >> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> > Everything we know suggests our ancestors always lived
> >> > near lots of water &
>
> >> Idiot, near it isn't in it.
>
> >>http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/d-
> >>ispatch/star...
>
> >> "The idea of sleeping on the higher ground rather than
> >> next to water seemed an attractive idea. Lakes, ponds,
> >> and stream channels in the African bush are good natural
> >> sources of water and plant food during the day. But at
> >> night they turn into really great places if you want to
> >> be hunted down as prey! The water margins attract the big
> >> and small predators that like to hunt in the dark of
> >> night. Even today at Olorgesailie, we often go to sleep
> >> hearing hyenas, jackals, and sometimes lions growling and
> >> whooping off in the distance during their nighttime
> >> prowls. Anyway, early humans could get food in the
> >> lowlands
> >> - that's where they left the chipped stone tools and
> >> other evidence of their activities. And, unlike earlier
> >> hominins, they could have avoided the favored hunting
> >> areas of other predators if they got to
>> higher ground at night."
Are trees not higher than the ground?
> >> > got part of their foods from the water:
>
> >> Oh, you found some early Homo crayfish middens? Great,
> >> why are you hiding this important evidence, we all would
> >> like to see it.
> > I dont see that sarcasm or ad hominum strengthens your
> > case. I dont see where he claims that hominids lived in
> > water, only that they could take advantage of it. Inasmuch
> > as they still do, it begs the question of when these
> > aqautic adaptations began. I dont claim to know. We see
> > hominids also adapted and lived in arid regions, but I
> > dont see the data to show when that began either.
It's unfortunate that some see an absence of data as an
invitation to elaborate. Conventional theorists seem to think
that the fact that stone tools and manuports are never found
at locations that were, at that time, open savanna is evidence
that confirms that A'pith and homo were--for some strange
reason--long distance running.
Marc employs the same contorted logic. There is no difference.
> > Evolutionarily, it makes sense that both ecosystems would
> > have been useful at one time or other, and that the lines
> > which could propagate in both would be more common.
Well stated. It's hard to imagine why an intelligent,
conscious animal wouldn't be expected to take advantage of
both. (As my hypothesis explains hominids evolved to
become intelligent while still residing in treed,
well-watered habitat.)
> I find this somewhat confused, Day.
Wagler, when have you ever not been confused?
> You seem not to realize that the extremist position is the
> AAT a la Verhaegen not the dry ape' position.
What dry ape position? Other than Lee's absurd long distance
running ape notions conventional theory is little more than a
few vague notions. Nitwits like yourself can hardly put
together even a few sentences worth of hypothetical thinking.
So it's rather absurd of you to dispute Marc's thinking
because it is, 'extreme." Afterall anything is going to appear
extreme to somebody who's thinking is a muddled as is yours.
> Nobody in the reality-based community says early hominins
> did not venture near water, on occasion inhabit areas that
> were close to water or took adsvantage, when opportunity,
> afforded, of aquatic resources.
Yes, conventional lunacy takes place in the treeless savanna
where A'pith and homo compete with lions and hyena, even
outrunning them amazingly.
> Verhaegen claims they were capable of doing nothing else
No he doesn't. He's as much an evasive twit as you are. Wet or
dry, it's all politics for you nitwits.
> He will furiously deny that he says this - probably within
> the hour but his posts will belie the claim.
Just as you will furiously deny that you believe Apith and
Homo could have competed with and out ran lions and hyena in
treeless habitat. Go ahead nitwit, deny it. And then tell us
what you really thing-- unless it's a secret.
So, Wagler. Do *you* belie the claim? (Answer the question you
evasive twit.)
> And what 'aquatic adaptations' are necessary to take
> advantage of aquatic resources - either now or in the
> early days?
Same back atcha you vague nitwit.
> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote in message
> > On Apr 7, 3:32 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Apr 7, 12:35 pm, Marc Verhaegen
> >> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> >> > Everything we know suggests our ancestors always lived
> >> > near lots of water &
>
> >> Idiot, near it isn't in it.
>
> >>http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/aop/olorg2004/d-
> >>ispatch/star...
>
> >> "The idea of sleeping on the higher ground rather than
> >> next to water seemed an attractive idea. Lakes, ponds,
> >> and stream channels in the African bush are good natural
> >> sources of water and plant food during the day. But at
> >> night they turn into really great places if you want to
> >> be hunted down as prey! The water margins attract the big
> >> and small predators that like to hunt in the dark of
> >> night. Even today at Olorgesailie, we often go to sleep
> >> hearing hyenas, jackals, and sometimes lions growling and
> >> whooping off in the distance during their nighttime
> >> prowls. Anyway, early humans could get food in the
> >> lowlands
> >> - that's where they left the chipped stone tools and
> >> other evidence of their activities. And, unlike earlier
> >> hominins, they could have avoided the favored hunting
> >> areas of other predators if they got to
>> higher ground at night."
Are trees not higher than the ground?
> >> > got part of their foods from the water:
>
> >> Oh, you found some early Homo crayfish middens? Great,
> >> why are you hiding this important evidence, we all would
> >> like to see it.
> > I dont see that sarcasm or ad hominum strengthens your
> > case. I dont see where he claims that hominids lived in
> > water, only that they could take advantage of it. Inasmuch
> > as they still do, it begs the question of when these
> > aqautic adaptations began. I dont claim to know. We see
> > hominids also adapted and lived in arid regions, but I
> > dont see the data to show when that began either.
It's unfortunate that some see an absence of data as an
invitation to elaborate. Conventional theorists seem to think
that the fact that stone tools and manuports are never found
at locations that were, at that time, open savanna is evidence
that confirms that A'pith and homo were--for some strange
reason--long distance running.
Marc employs the same contorted logic. There is no difference.
> > Evolutionarily, it makes sense that both ecosystems would
> > have been useful at one time or other, and that the lines
> > which could propagate in both would be more common.
Well stated. It's hard to imagine why an intelligent,
conscious animal wouldn't be expected to take advantage of
both. (As my hypothesis explains hominids evolved to
become intelligent while still residing in treed,
well-watered habitat.)
> I find this somewhat confused, Day.
Wagler, when have you ever not been confused?
> You seem not to realize that the extremist position is the
> AAT a la Verhaegen not the dry ape' position.
What dry ape position? Other than Lee's absurd long distance
running ape notions conventional theory is little more than a
few vague notions. Nitwits like yourself can hardly put
together even a few sentences worth of hypothetical thinking.
So it's rather absurd of you to dispute Marc's thinking
because it is, 'extreme." Afterall anything is going to appear
extreme to somebody who's thinking is a muddled as is yours.
> Nobody in the reality-based community says early hominins
> did not venture near water, on occasion inhabit areas that
> were close to water or took adsvantage, when opportunity,
> afforded, of aquatic resources.
Yes, conventional lunacy takes place in the treeless savanna
where A'pith and homo compete with lions and hyena, even
outrunning them amazingly.
> Verhaegen claims they were capable of doing nothing else
No he doesn't. He's as much an evasive twit as you are. Wet or
dry, it's all politics for you nitwits.
> He will furiously deny that he says this - probably within
> the hour but his posts will belie the claim.
Just as you will furiously deny that you believe Apith and
Homo could have competed with and out ran lions and hyena in
treeless habitat. Go ahead nitwit, deny it. And then tell us
what you really thing-- unless it's a secret.
So, Wagler. Do *you* belie the claim? (Answer the question you
evasive twit.)
> And what 'aquatic adaptations' are necessary to take
> advantage of aquatic resources - either now or in the
> early days?
Same back atcha you vague nitwit.