tigre & ape

[Marc Verha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C94toea8KqU

Thanks, Mario.

--Marc

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 21, 11:58=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DC94toea8KqU
>
> Thanks, Mario.
>
> --Marc

http://tinyurl.com/44kbur

[Marc Verha]

> http://tinyurl.com/44kbur

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 21, 5:53=A0pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:11 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "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." Cameron M. Smith
>
> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely varied
> adaptability of hominids.

Another lip-service reply, lacking any sort of data. Nothing
but the usual, know nothing tripe.

Su Solomon has been there, Smilth has been there, they say
different, but you know better than they?

http://tinyurl.com/y44rnt

"Mind you, its amazing how people can delude themselves into
believing the impossible! And I would put the: "nah I wont get
taken by a croc, 'cause the crocs are small and not there etc.
into the class called: 'logical fantasies". This can be
believed by the most "intelligent" people, including Johanson!
I was doing a dig at Alia Bay (south of Koobi Fora) in '87,
and each afternoon when we finished for the day, we would go
down to the shores of Lake Turkana and have a wash. People
("intelligent white people") would throw themselves in the
water and swim and wash, I stayed at the back in knee deep
water, praying that if there were any crocs around at the
time, they would take the stupid "B's" who were further out!"
Su Solomon

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.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 22, 12:35=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

>
> :-D
> This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with AAT.

Nothing has anything to do with AAT, because never existed.

FYI:

Message-ID:
<1124421294.671438.286120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Jason
Eshleman: "You, Marc, are a low-life, a real sleazebag
sociopath. If it makes you feel better to repeat ad nauseum
that no one has an argument against your scenario, you really
ought to get your medication adjusted. It might actually make
you less of a dickhead. 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."

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."

http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html Mario
Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html

http://www.aquaticape.org/

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/49f-
f7eb0fc201786

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 22, 2:29=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> My little boy,

I see you are still obsessed with chasing little boys where
there aren't any. Get some help, pervert.

[Claudius D]

On Apr 22, 1:44=A0pm, "Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote:
> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>
> news:C4340A8C.1193F%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Op 22-04-2008 02:53, in artikel b543e34d-ee37-463a-8875-8-
> > 963f7420...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Day Brown
> > <daybr...@hughes.net> schreef:
>
> >>> "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.
>
> > :-D
> > This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with
> > AAT. Why don't these fanatics inform a bit before talking?
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> >>> Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake
> >>> Turkana: only visiting=

> >>> maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron M. Smith
>
> > Mr.Smith apparently doesn't know what AAT means: his
> > blabla is irrelevan=
t.
>
> > AAT is about ancestral (Plio)Pleistocene Homo populations
> > (after the H/P=

> > split c.5 Ma) dispersing along the coasts (incl.Java &
> > Flores) & from there along the waterways inland.
>
> >> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely varied
> >> adaptability of hominids. There is the point where the
> >> waterhole water is only inches deep, and then its the
> >> turn of the hominids to stab the crocks with their
> >> digging sticks for dinner. I never suggested that a
> >> mother would want to throw a baby into the water, but if
> >> by doing so she feeds a crock rather than a lion, she'd
> >> do better to deny the lion the reward for hominid
> >> predation. the big cats have been much better at it than
> >> crocks. I fail to see why aquatic adaptations required
> >> hominids to *only* rely on that ecosystem, It makes more
> >> sense that the hominids which could exploit BOTH savannah
> >> and water courses would do better. And this is egzactly
> >> what we find associated with the oldest hominid skull yet
> >> found, at Chad, which at the time was a varied seasonal
> >> riverine floodplain like the Okavango.
>
> > Waterside (both land & water) ok, but not savanna: in that
> > case we had h=
ad
> > a keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (=E0 la Olson) with
> > sharper teeth, higher=

> > running speed, higher body temperature, higher daily
> > temp.fluctuations, less sweating, less dependence on
> > sodium, water, iodine, a short sun-reflecti=
ng
> > fur, no SC fat, no plantigrady, etc., but we see the
> > opposite in humans.=

>
> > There's not the slightest indication for any savanna
> > adaptation in human=

> > ancestors. =A0Of course, some Homo populations could have
> > lived next to rivers in savannas or elsewhere, but that
> > doesn't mean they were savanna dwellers: they were
> > waterside omnivores.
>
> > R.Wrangham 2005 "The delta hypothesis: hominoid ecology
> > and hominin origins" in D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley
> > eds "Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate and
> > Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam"=

> > Brill Ac.Publ.Inc, Boston MA, pp.231-242
> > =3D example of people who want to keep the old savanna
> > =nonsense in
> > combination with waterside ideas (BTW, it's about apiths,
> > not about Homo, IOW, irrelevant to AAT).
>
> > --Marc Verhaegen
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> >> Depending on what time of year, it was either dry
> >> grassland with stagnant bayous, or wet season lushness
> >> with raging torrents dividing up the resource bases. The
> >> hominids that could swim got to eat the fruit on the
> >> other side, while those that couldnt are no longer in the
> >> gene pool. Crocks in the channel would be a concern, but
> >> herd animals are locked into habit, and will try to cross
> >> the water at the same point every year. That's where the
> >> crocks will be. The hominids are smart enuf to figure
> >> this out, and dont go there.
>
> Marc: Since you only have one idiosyncratic thing to say why
> do you have to repe=
at
> it endlessly?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, either get a real hypothesis or get a life. (Same goes
for Olsen and Clark.)

[Marc Verha]

Op 22-04-2008 02:53, in artikel b543e34d-ee37-463a-8875-8963f-
7420523@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Day Brown
<daybrown@hughes.net> schreef:

>> "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.

:-D
This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with AAT.
Why don't these fanatics inform a bit before talking?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

>> Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake
>> Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron
>> M. Smith

Mr.Smith apparently doesn't know what AAT means: his blabla is
irrelevant.

AAT is about ancestral (Plio)Pleistocene Homo populations
(after the H/P split c.5 Ma) dispersing along the coasts
(incl.Java & Flores) & from there along the waterways inland.

> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely varied
> adaptability of hominids. There is the point where the
> waterhole water is only inches deep, and then its the turn
> of the hominids to stab the crocks with their digging sticks
> for dinner. I never suggested that a mother would want to
> throw a baby into the water, but if by doing so she feeds a
> crock rather than a lion, she'd do better to deny the lion
> the reward for hominid predation. the big cats have been
> much better at it than crocks. I fail to see why aquatic
> adaptations required hominids to *only* rely on that
> ecosystem, It makes more sense that the hominids which could
> exploit BOTH savannah and water courses would do better. And
> this is egzactly what we find associated with the oldest
> hominid skull yet found, at Chad, which at the time was a
> varied seasonal riverine floodplain like the Okavango.

Waterside (both land & water) ok, but not savanna: in that
case we had had a keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (à la Olson)
with sharper teeth, higher running speed, higher body
temperature, higher daily temp.fluctuations, less sweating,
less dependence on sodium, water, iodine, a short
sun-reflecting fur, no SC fat, no plantigrady, etc., but we
see the opposite in humans.

There's not the slightest indication for any savanna
adaptation in human ancestors. Of course, some Homo
populations could have lived next to rivers in savannas or
elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they were savanna dwellers:
they were waterside omnivores.

N.Wrangham 2005 "The delta hypothesis: hominoid ecology and
hominin origins" in D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley eds
"Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate and Mammal
Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam" Brill Ac.Publ.Inc,
Boston MA, pp.231-242
= example of people who want to keep the old savanna nonsense
= in combination
with waterside ideas (BTW, it's about apiths, not about Homo,
IOW, irrelevant to AAT).

--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT

> Depending on what time of year, it was either dry
> grassland with stagnant bayous, or wet season lushness
> with raging torrents dividing up the resource bases. The
> hominids that could swim got to eat the fruit on the other
> side, while those that couldnt are no longer in the gene
> pool. Crocks in the channel would be a concern, but herd
> animals are locked into habit, and will try to cross the
> water at the same point every year. That's where the
> crocks will be. The hominids are smart enuf to figure this
> out, and dont go there.

[Cj]

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C4340A8C.1193F%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...
> Op 22-04-2008 02:53, in artikel b543e34d-ee37-463a-8875-896-
> 3f7420523@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Day Brown
> <daybrown@hughes.net> schreef:
>
>>> "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.
>
> :-D
> This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with AAT.
> Why don't these fanatics inform a bit before talking?
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
>>> Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake
>>> Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron
>>> M. Smith
>
> Mr.Smith apparently doesn't know what AAT means: his blabla
> is irrelevant.
>
> AAT is about ancestral (Plio)Pleistocene Homo
> populations (after the H/P split c.5 Ma) dispersing
> along the coasts (incl.Java & Flores) & from there along
> the waterways inland.
>
>> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely varied
>> adaptability of hominids. There is the point where the
>> waterhole water is only inches deep, and then its the turn
>> of the hominids to stab the crocks with their digging
>> sticks for dinner. I never suggested that a mother would
>> want to throw a baby into the water, but if by doing so she
>> feeds a crock rather than a lion, she'd do better to deny
>> the lion the reward for hominid predation. the big cats
>> have been much better at it than crocks. I fail to see why
>> aquatic adaptations required hominids to *only* rely on
>> that ecosystem, It makes more sense that the hominids which
>> could exploit BOTH savannah and water courses would do
>> better. And this is egzactly what we find associated with
>> the oldest hominid skull yet found, at Chad, which at the
>> time was a varied seasonal riverine floodplain like the
>> Okavango.
>
> Waterside (both land & water) ok, but not savanna: in that
> case we had had a keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (à la
> Olson) with sharper teeth, higher running speed, higher body
> temperature, higher daily temp.fluctuations, less sweating,
> less dependence on sodium, water, iodine, a short
> sun-reflecting fur, no SC fat, no plantigrady, etc., but we
> see the opposite in humans.
>
> There's not the slightest indication for any savanna
> adaptation in human ancestors. Of course, some Homo
> populations could have lived next to rivers in savannas or
> elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they were savanna dwellers:
> they were waterside omnivores.
>
> R.Wrangham 2005 "The delta hypothesis: hominoid ecology and
> hominin origins" in D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley eds
> "Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate and
> Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam" Brill
> Ac.Publ.Inc, Boston MA, pp.231-242
> = example of people who want to keep the old savanna
> = nonsense in
> combination with waterside ideas (BTW, it's about apiths,
> not about Homo, IOW, irrelevant to AAT).
>
> --Marc Verhaegen
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
>
>> Depending on what time of year, it was either dry
>> grassland with stagnant bayous, or wet season lushness
>> with raging torrents dividing up the resource bases. The
>> hominids that could swim got to eat the fruit on the other
>> side, while those that couldnt are no longer in the gene
>> pool. Crocks in the channel would be a concern, but herd
>> animals are locked into habit, and will try to cross the
>> water at the same point every year. That's where the
>> crocks will be. The hominids are smart enuf to figure this
>> out, and dont go there.
>

Marc: Since you only have one idiosyncratic thing to say why
do you have to repeat it endlessly?

[Marc Verha]

My little boy, for endless repetitions you have to be with
your buddy Olson.

Op 22-04-2008 22:44, in artikel
p7adnWb7osfZ05PVnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@gwi.net, Cj
<Cj@mist.net> schreef:

> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:C4340A8C.1193F%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...
>> Op 22-04-2008 02:53, in artikel b543e34d-ee37-463a-8875-89-
>> 63f7420523@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Day Brown
>> <daybrown@hughes.net> schreef:
>>
>>>> "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.
>>
>> :-D
>> This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with
>> AAT. Why don't these fanatics inform a bit before talking?
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>>
>>>> Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people who live around Lake
>>>> Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim in that lake."
>>>> Cameron M. Smith
>>
>> Mr.Smith apparently doesn't know what AAT means: his blabla
>> is irrelevant.
>>
>> AAT is about ancestral (Plio)Pleistocene Homo populations
>> (after the H/P split c.5 Ma) dispersing along the coasts
>> (incl.Java & Flores) & from there along the waterways
>> inland.
>>
>>> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely varied
>>> adaptability of hominids. There is the point where the
>>> waterhole water is only inches deep, and then its the turn
>>> of the hominids to stab the crocks with their digging
>>> sticks for dinner. I never suggested that a mother would
>>> want to throw a baby into the water, but if by doing so
>>> she feeds a crock rather than a lion, she'd do better to
>>> deny the lion the reward for hominid predation. the big
>>> cats have been much better at it than crocks. I fail to
>>> see why aquatic adaptations required hominids to *only*
>>> rely on that ecosystem, It makes more sense that the
>>> hominids which could exploit BOTH savannah and water
>>> courses would do better. And this is egzactly what we find
>>> associated with the oldest hominid skull yet found, at
>>> Chad, which at the time was a varied seasonal riverine
>>> floodplain like the Okavango.
>>
>> Waterside (both land & water) ok, but not savanna: in that
>> case we had had a keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (à la
>> Olson) with sharper teeth, higher running speed, higher
>> body temperature, higher daily temp.fluctuations, less
>> sweating, less dependence on sodium, water, iodine, a short
>> sun-reflecting fur, no SC fat, no plantigrady, etc., but we
>> see the opposite in humans.
>>
>> There's not the slightest indication for any savanna
>> adaptation in human ancestors. Of course, some Homo
>> populations could have lived next to rivers in savannas or
>> elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they were savanna
>> dwellers: they were waterside omnivores.
>>
>> R.Wrangham 2005 "The delta hypothesis: hominoid ecology and
>> hominin origins" in D.Lieberman, R.Smith & J.Kelley eds
>> "Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human, Primate and
>> Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbeam" Brill
>> Ac.Publ.Inc, Boston MA, pp.231-242
>> = example of people who want to keep the old savanna
>> = nonsense in
>> combination with waterside ideas (BTW, it's about apiths,
>> not about Homo, IOW, irrelevant to AAT).
>>
>> --Marc Verhaegen
>> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
>> http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>>
>>
>>> Depending on what time of year, it was either dry
>>> grassland with stagnant bayous, or wet season lushness
>>> with raging torrents dividing up the resource bases. The
>>> hominids that could swim got to eat the fruit on the other
>>> side, while those that couldnt are no longer in the gene
>>> pool. Crocks in the channel would be a concern, but herd
>>> animals are locked into habit, and will try to cross the
>>> water at the same point every year. That's where the
>>> crocks will be. The hominids are smart enuf to figure this
>>> out, and dont go there.
>>
>
> Marc: Since you only have one idiosyncratic thing to say why
> do you have to repeat it endlessly?

[McLark]

On Apr 22, 4:42=A0pm, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 1:44=A0pm, "Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>
> >news:C4340A8C.1193F%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...
>
> > > Op 22-04-2008 02:53, in artikel b543e34d-ee37-463a-8875-
> > > -8963f7420...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, Day=

> > > Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> schreef:
>
> > >>> "Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did
> > >>> not learn thi=
s
> > >>> 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, investigati=
ng
> > >>> 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 cro=
c
> > >>> 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
> > >>> babi=
es
> > >>> swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video,
> > >>> have nothing to d=
o
> > >>> with the real situation of predator avoidance in
> > >>> Africa.
>
> > > :-D
> > > This "predator avoidance" blabla has nothing to do with
> > > AAT. Why don't these fanatics inform a bit before
> > > talking? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> > >>> Ask the Dasenich or Turkana people who live around
> > >>> Lake Turkana: only visiti=
ng
> > >>> maniacs swim in that lake." Cameron M. Smith
>
> > > Mr.Smith apparently doesn't know what AAT means: his
> > > blabla is irrelev=
ant.
>
> > > AAT is about ancestral (Plio)Pleistocene Homo
> > > populations (after the H=
/P
> > > split c.5 Ma) dispersing along the coasts (incl.Java &
> > > Flores) & from there along the waterways inland.
>
> > >> As usual, this characterization ignores the widely
> > >> varied adaptabilit=
y
> > >> of hominids. There is the point where the waterhole
> > >> water is only inches deep, and=

> > >> then its the turn of the hominids to stab the crocks
> > >> with their digging sticks for dinner. I never suggested
> > >> that a mother would want=

> > >> to throw a baby into the water, but if by doing so she
> > >> feeds a crock rather than a lion, she'd do better to
> > >> deny the lion the reward for hominid predation. the big
> > >> cats have been much better at it than crocks. I fail to
> > >> see why aquatic adaptations required hominids to *only*
> > >> rel=
y
> > >> on that ecosystem, It makes more sense that the
> > >> hominids which could exploit BOTH savannah and water
> > >> courses would do better. And this is egzactly what we
> > >> find associated with the oldest hominid skull yet
> > >> found, at Chad, which at the time was a varied seasonal
> > >> riverine floodplain like the Okavango.
>
> > > Waterside (both land & water) ok, but not savanna: in
> > > that case we had=
had
> > > a keen olfaction, a bigger mouth (=E0 la Olson) with
> > > sharper teeth, high=
er
> > > running speed, higher body temperature, higher daily
> > > temp.fluctuations=
,
> > > less sweating, less dependence on sodium, water, iodine,
> > > a short sun-reflec=
ting
> > > fur, no SC fat, no plantigrady, etc., but we see the
> > > opposite in human=
s.
>
> > > There's not the slightest indication for any savanna
> > > adaptation in hum=
an
> > > ancestors. =A0Of course, some Homo populations could
> > > have lived next t=
o
> > > rivers in savannas or elsewhere, but that doesn't mean
> > > they were savanna dwellers: they were waterside
> > > omnivores.
>
> > > R.Wrangham 2005 "The delta hypothesis: hominoid ecology
> > > and hominin origins" in D.Lieberman, R.Smith &
> > > J.Kelley eds "Interpreting the Past: Essays on Human,
> > > Primate and Mammal Evolution in Honor of David Pilbea=
m"
> > > Brill Ac.Publ.Inc, Boston MA, pp.231-242
> > > =3D example of people who want to keep the old savanna
> > > =nonsense in
> > > combination with waterside ideas (BTW, it's about
> > > apiths, not about Homo, IOW, irrelevant to AAT).
>
> > > --Marc Verhaegen
> > > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
> > > http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
>
> > >> Depending on what time of year, it was either dry
> > >> grassland with stagnant bayous, or wet season lushness
> > >> with raging torrents dividing=

> > >> up the resource bases. The hominids that could swim got
> > >> to eat the fruit on the other side, while those that
> > >> couldnt are no longer in th=
e
> > >> gene pool. Crocks in the channel would be a concern,
> > >> but herd animals are locked=

> > >> into habit, and will try to cross the water at the same
> > >> point every year. That's where the crocks will be. The
> > >> hominids are smart enuf to=

> > >> figure this out, and dont go there.
>
> > Marc: Since you only have one idiosyncratic thing to say
> > why do you have to re=
peat
> > it endlessly?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah, either get a real hypothesis or get a life. =A0(Same
> goes for Olsen and Clark.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Did you have a URL for that new hypothesis of yours, Dimmy?
(tick, tock, tick, tock)

[Claudius D]

On Apr 23, 4:16=A0am, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 9:47=A0pm, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 4:42=A0pm, Claudius Denk
> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [tripe]
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yeah, either get a real hypothesis or get a life.
> > > =A0(Same goes for Olsen and Clark.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Did you have a URL for that new hypothesis of yours,
> > Dimmy? (tick, tock, tick, tock)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> (Tick, tock, tick, tock)

Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say. And he keeps
saying it over and over. Clark doesn't even have this and he
keeps posting his content free whining over and over.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 23, 12:32=A0pm, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say. =A0And he
> keeps saying it over and over. =A0Clark doesn't even have
> this and he keeps posting his content free whining over
> and over.

Content free misinformation from McGinn:

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

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 23, 12:48=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

> > Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
>
> No, no,

Here is what the professionals have to say about you:

http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html Mario
Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
idiosyncratic by most of the participants."

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."

[Marc Verha]

Why can't netloons like Olson & Denk stop talking about me??
What have I done to them?? Why can't they keep me out of their
"discussions"?? :-(

> Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.

No, no, I have a lot of non-cractic things to say, eg, on
apith lifestyle: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?re-
quest=slideshow&type=figure&doi=
10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&id=37960 http://biology.plosjour-
nals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/figure/10.1371_journa
l.pbio.0030380.g001-L.jpg

[Claudius D]

On Apr 23, 12:48=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Why can't netloons like Olson & Denk stop talking about me??
> What have I done to them?? Why can't they keep me out of
> their "discussions"?? =A0 :-(=

>
> > Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
>
> No, no, I have a lot of non-cractic things to say, eg, on
> apith lifestyle

Your thinking is so vague and sketchy it's almost
indistinguishable from conventional theory. Like Lee, Gerrrit,
and Clark, you've never had any real dispute with the
perfectly sensible notion that early hominids, both A'pith and
HE, resided primarily in treed habitat. You entitle your vague
notions aquatic and those nitwits entitle their vague notions
savanna. None of you have a real evolutionary hypothesis or a
clue of how to begin towards such.

[McLark]

On Apr 24, 12:54=A0am, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:48=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > Why can't netloons like Olson & Denk stop talking about
> > me?? What have I=

> > done to them?? Why can't they keep me out of their
> > "discussions"?? =A0 :=
-(
>
> > > Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
>
> > No, no, I have a lot of non-cractic things to say, eg, on
> > apith lifestyl=
e
>
> Your thinking is so vague and sketchy it's almost
> indistinguishable from conventional theory. =A0Like Lee,
> Gerrrit, and Clark, you've never had any real dispute with
> the perfectly sensible notion that early hominids, both
> A'pith and HE, resided primarily in treed habitat. =A0You
> entitle your vague notions aquatic and those nitwits
> entitle their vague notions savanna. =A0None of you have a
> real evolutionary hypothesis or a clue of how to begin
> towards such.

That's why we listen to you, Dink. Now, where was that URL to
your new hypothesis? I seem to have misplaced it.

[Claudius D]

On Apr 24, 4:04=A0am, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:54=A0am, Claudius Denk
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 12:48=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
> > <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

> > > Why can't netloons like Olson & Denk stop talking about
> > > me?? What have= I done to them?? Why can't they keep me
> > > out of their "discussions"?? =
=A0 :-(
>
> > > > Marc has only one idiosyncractic thing to say.
>
> > > No, no, I have a lot of non-cractic things to say, eg,
> > > on apith lifest=
yle
>
> > Your thinking is so vague and sketchy it's almost
> > indistinguishable from conventional theory. =A0Like Lee,
> > Gerrrit, and Clark, you've never had any real dispute with
> > the perfectly sensible notion that early hominids, both
> > A'pith and HE, resided primarily in treed habitat. =A0You=

> > entitle your vague notions aquatic and those nitwits
> > entitle their vague notions savanna. =A0None of you have a
> > real evolutionary hypothesis or a clue of how to begin
> > towards such.
>
> That's why we listen to you, Dink. =A0Now, where was that
> URL to your new hypothesis? =A0I seem to have misplaced it.

Clark, you are incapable of addressing content and you have no
hypothesis of your own. One wonders why you even bother to
participate in this NG. You seem to be convinced that Marc is
wrong. But Marc's thinking is so vague and your objections are
vaguer still.

You need to come to grips with the fact that evolutionary
theory is a science and as such the evidence is the ultimate
arbitrator. This is the way it is. Get used to it. Whining
isn't going to make any difference.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 24, 7:36=A0am, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> Clark, you are incapable of addressing content

Says the master of no-content posts: 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

>and you have no hypothesis of your own.

And you are a brainless illiterate that claims to have a
hypothesis.

=A0

[Claudius D]

I don't know what you're so nervous about. It's not like you
have a real hypothesis anyway.

So now you admit that spears could be useful for fishing. And
I suspect if I were to continue to poke at you long enough
you'd also eventually admit that spears could be useful in
treed habitat also. This being the case one can only wonder
why it is you are so insistent that hominid evolution
primarily involved a long distance running/ walking lifestyle
in treeless savanna habitat. Can you explain this to us?

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 24, 9:19=A0am, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't know what you're so nervous about. =A0It's not like
> you have a real hypothesis anyway.

ROFL, like you do?

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."

>
> So now you admit that spears could be useful for
> fishing. =A0

Try to be honest for once in you life, you said this not me:
Message-ID: <f8b38908-51f8-40f9-8119-2a1fdea409a7@b1g2000hsg.-
googlegroups.com> Claud: " Is this true? Do you really believe
that spears couldn't be used for fish? Why not?"

You made that up, just as you make up all your silly posts.
The reason you can't find a quote from me is because I never
said anything about spears couldn't be used for fishing. The
problem is, you misread what I said, and now you are trying to
lie your head out of your asshole. Won't work, so time to put
up or shut up, quote me directy, you brainless idiot.

[Claudius D]

On Apr 24, 11:15=A0am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> > had any real dispute with the perfectly sensible notion
> > that early hominids, both A'pith and HE, resided primarily
> > in treed habitat.
>
> Again: IMO:
>
> Gracile apiths & aethiopicus =3D aquarboreal =3D vertical
> wading, hanging,=

> climbing, floating & possibly parttime Kwing, in swamp

Speculative nonsense.

forestshttp://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=3Dsl-
ideshow&type=3D= figu...
> 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&id=3D37960http://biology.plosj-
> ournals.org/arc=
hive/1545-7885/3/11/figure/10.1371...
> l.pbio.0030380.g001-L.jpg Diet & locomotion overlapping
> with: Robust apith =3D predom.bipedal wading & KWing in
> wetlands, feeding on AHV=

> (aq.herbaceous vegetation google "Ndoki gorilla)", papyrus,
> sedges & waterside grasses (rice), possibly bamboo & not
> unlikely HSIs (hard-shelle=
d
> invertebrates, see Shabel 2007 & 2008 AAPA abstracts)
>
> H.erectus is found amid marine & freshwater shells in river
> deltas (eg, Mojokerto) & later river/lake-side, parttime
> diving for shellfish, probabl=
y
> parttime wading for aq.vegetation, collecting eggs,
> possibly coconuts, occasionally butchering turtles, whales,
> bovids etc.
> H.floresiensis & H.georgicus seem to have had still
> arm-hanging adaptation=
s.

I don't see the point of this speculation any more than I see
the point of Lee Olsen's treeless savanna speculations.

>
> Every detail is based on comparative arguments.

Why would anybody care. Comparative techniques are such a
small part of what is relevant in any kind of scenario
construction.

>
> IWO, most early hominids (incl.habilis & possibly georgicus)
> seem to have been partially arboreal, but this is not so
> likely for H.erectus s.s. (too=

> heavy). =A0

Why not?

>
> I guess the rel.small-brained hominids were partially
> arboreal (apiths, Afr.apes, habilis, ?Dmanisi, Flores...
> google "aquarboreal"), but the thicker-boned &
> larger-brained erectus (mojokertensis etc.) relied more on=

> parttime diving (abundant DHA etc.).

Speculative nonsense.

[Claudius D]

On Apr 24, 11:26=A0am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:19=A0am, Claudius Denk
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't know what you're so nervous about. =A0It's not
> > like you have a real hypothesis anyway.
>
> ROFL, like you do?
>
> 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."
>
>
>
> > So now you admit that spears could be useful for
> > fishing. =A0
>
> Try to be honest for once in you life, you said this not me:
> Message-ID: <f8b38908-51f8-40f9-8119-2a1fdea40...@b1g2000hs-
> g.googlegroups.com> Claud: " Is this true? Do you really
> believe that spears couldn't be used for =A0fish? Why not?"
>
> You made that up, just as you make up all your silly posts.
> The reason you can't find a quote from me is because I never
> said anything about spears couldn't be used for fishing. The
> problem is, you misread what I said, and now you are trying
> to lie your head out of your asshole. Won't work, so time to
> put up or shut up, quote me directy, you brainless idiot.

I think everybody can see for themselves what you did or
didn't say. The important thing is that you do not deny that
spears could be useful in *many* more ways than in the context
of a hunting/gathering lifestyle limited to treeless savanna
habitat that you propose. Right? (Answer the question you
evasive nitwit.)

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 24, 11:32=A0am, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> Speculative nonsense:

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
9.5 mya?
10. Then you should stop;pissing into it.
11. Speak for yourself. I see just fine at night.
12. Uh, er. These artifacts don't come with notes attached to
them that indicate how they were actually used.
13. Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few
thousand years ago.
14. 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]

On Apr 24, 11:36=A0am, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:26=A0am, Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 9:19=A0am, Claudius Denk
> > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know what you're so nervous about. =A0It's not
> > > like you have a=

> > > real hypothesis anyway.
>
> > ROFL, like you do?
>
> > 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."
>
> > > So now you admit that spears could be useful for
> > > fishing. =A0
>
> > Try to be honest for once in you life, you said this not
> > me: Message-ID: <f8b38908-51f8-40f9-8119-2a1fdea40...@b1g-
> > 2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Claud: " Is this true? Do you
> > really believe that spears couldn't be used for =A0fish?
> > Why not?"
>
> > You made that up, just as you make up all your silly
> > posts. The reason you can't find a quote from me is
> > because I never said anything about spears couldn't be
> > used for fishing. The problem is, you misread what I said,
> > and now you are trying to lie your head out of your
> > asshole. Won't work, so time to put up or shut up, quote
> > me directy, you brainless idiot.
>
> I think everybody can see for themselves what you did or
> didn't say. The important thing is that you do not deny that
> spears could be useful in *many* more ways than in the
> context of a hunting/gathering lifestyle limited to treeless
> savanna habitat that you propose. Right? =A0(Answer the
> question you evasive nitwit.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No response.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 24, 11:53=A0am, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:36=A0am, Claudius Denk
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:26=A0am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 9:19=A0am, Claudius Denk
> > > <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote=
:
>
> > > > I don't know what you're so nervous about. =A0It's not
> > > > like you have=
a
> > > > real hypothesis anyway.
>
> > > ROFL, like you do?
>
> > > 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."
>
> > > > So now you admit that spears could be useful for
> > > > fishing. =A0
>
> > > Try to be honest for once in you life, you said this not
> > > me: Message-ID: <f8b38908-51f8-40f9-8119-2a1fdea40...@b-
> > > 1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Claud: " Is this true? Do
> > > you really believe that spears couldn't be used for
> > > =A0fish? Why not?"
>
> > > You made that up, just as you make up all your silly
> > > posts. The reason=

> > > you can't find a quote from me is because I never said
> > > anything about spears couldn't be used for fishing. The
> > > problem is, you misread what I said, and now you are
> > > trying to lie your head out of your asshole. Won't work,
> > > so time to put up or shut up, quote me directy, you
> > > brainless idiot.
>
> > I think everybody can see for themselves what you did or
> > didn't say. The important thing is that you do not deny
> > that spears could be useful in *many* more ways than in
> > the context of a hunting/gathering lifestyle limited to
> > treeless savanna habitat that you propose. Right?
> > =A0(Answer the question you evasive nitwit.)- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No response.

Another lie. There was a response, the problem is, you
can't read.

What part of this are you too stupid to understand?
> > > Message-ID: <f8b38908-51f8-40f9-8119-2a1fdea40...@b1g20-
> > > 00hsg.googlegroups.com> Claud: " Is this true? Do you
> > > really believe that spears couldn't be used for fish?
> > > Why not?"

You said that, not me. It's a strawman claim, proven by the
fact you can't quote me directly. You lied, there is no
such record.

Put up or shut up, asshole, quote me directly. If you can't,
it is an admission you lied.

[Claudius D]

Just think how much easier all of this would have been if you
simply made the retraction.

[Claudius D]

Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do not
think-- unless it's a secret or something.

Is it a secret?

[McLark]

On Apr 24, 2:32=A0pm, Claudius Denk
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do
> not think-- unless it's a secret or something.
>
> Is it a secret?

What, the URL for your "new and improved" hypothesis? I
guess.....

[Marc Verha]

> had any real dispute with the perfectly sensible notion that
> early hominids, both A'pith and HE, resided primarily in
> treed habitat.

Again: IMO:

Gracile apiths & aethiopicus = aquarboreal = vertical wading,
hanging, climbing, floating & possibly parttime Kwing, in
swamp forests http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?reque-
st=slideshow&type=figure&doi=
10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&id=37960 http://biology.plosjour-
nals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/figure/10.1371_journa
l.pbio.0030380.g001-L.jpg Diet & locomotion overlapping with:
Robust apith = predom.bipedal wading & KWing in wetlands,
feeding on AHV (aq.herbaceous vegetation google "Ndoki
gorilla)", papyrus, sedges & waterside grasses (rice),
possibly bamboo & not unlikely HSIs (hard-shelled
invertebrates, see Shabel 2007 & 2008 AAPA abstracts)

m.erectus is found amid marine & freshwater shells in river
deltas (eg, Mojokerto) & later river/lake-side, parttime
diving for shellfish, probably parttime wading for
aq.vegetation, collecting eggs, possibly coconuts,
occasionally butchering turtles, whales, bovids etc.
n.floresiensis & H.georgicus seem to have had still
arm-hanging adaptations.

Every detail is based on comparative arguments.

IWO, most early hominids (incl.habilis & possibly georgicus)
seem to have been partially arboreal, but this is not so
likely for H.erectus s.s. (too heavy).

I guess the rel.small-brained hominids were partially arboreal
(apiths, Afr.apes, habilis, ?Dmanisi, Flores... google
"aquarboreal"), but the thicker-boned & larger-brained erectus
(mojokertensis etc.) relied more on parttime diving (abundant
DHA etc.).

[Claudius D]

On Apr 24, 1:04=A0pm, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:32=A0pm, Claudius Denk
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Of course you could always just tell us what you do or do
> > not think-- unless it's a secret or something.
>
> > Is it a secret?
>
> What, the URL for your "new and improved" hypothesis? I
> guess.....

Aren't you talking about the same (basically) hypothesis I've
had going on for about 5 years now? Why do you refer to it as
new and improved? And why don't you just use a search engine?
I'm sure you'd have no trouble finding it if you'd just put
some effort into it. Give it a try.

Let me know if you need help finding searchable words
and phrases.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 27, 3:18=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >> It's obvious: otherwise you had found at least 1 little
> >> objection... =A0 =A0:-D
>
> SF:
>
> >http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvS7251oSE-Vw5Lg_LDZo3--
> >lvoBgD909KG480
>
> My little boy,

Still lusting after little boys, pervert?

FYI:

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

[Cj]

"Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhaegen@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C435946D.119D5%m_verhaegen@skynet.be...
> SF:
>> Here is what the professionals have to say about you:
>> http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html Mario
>> Vaneechoutte: "Verhaegen's reasoning was considered as
>> idiosyncratic by most of the participants."
>
> Yes, my boy, that's why we wrote this paper together: M
> Verhaegen, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender & N Oser 2007
> "The original econiche of the genus Homo: Open Plain or
> Waterside?" pp.155-186 in SI Muñoz ed. "Ecology Research
> Progress" Novapublishers NY
>
> :-D
>
How the hell does anything you author get past peer review? or
does it? Endless reiteration of your favorite lunacy doesn't
improve either your logic or your understanding of biology. I
gather that this citation is from a symposium or conference
text and escaped any serious peer review. Is it a rule in your
"field" to always include a paper or two for humor's sake? Cj

[Marc Verha]

>> It's obvious: otherwise you had found at least 1 little
>> objection...
>> :-D

SF:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvS7251oSE-Vw5Lg_LDZo3-l-
> voBgD909KG480

My little boy, this is totally irrelevant. Why don't you
inform first?? You're becoming more & more childish.

[Rich Travs]

Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 11:58 am, Marc Verhaegen
> <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C94toea8KqU
> >
> > Thanks, Mario.
> >
> > --Marc
>
> http://tinyurl.com/44kbur

Deer and tigers are aquatic.