| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ed wolf
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only |
 |
|
On 5 Okt., 18:41, Charles wrote:
[quote]The three of you act as a group competing to impress each other. None
of you have any interest in trying to understand what I wrote. Your
hidden agenda is to read into what-I-do-not-say cute or fantastic
assertions. Now you will all be offended and pushed even closer in
ranks to "get back" at me. This is all just your recreation, the
recreation of professional students.
[/quote]
Dear Charles,
Please don“t be so touchy. I know I m slightly off topic anyway
with this Neanderthal hobby-horse of mine, and would hate to
interrupt an interesting thread for it. Still think its OK what I
wrote
though, and no pissing contest intended. Just read the words as
I wrote them in a friendly and curious mood. I speak for myself,
I am not part of a group, no student since 35 years, and a newbie
to sci-groups.
Do I have to plaster every post with smileys so
people know I`m one of the good guys?
regards, ed |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Sweating and Brain Size |
|
|
On Oct 6, 2:42 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]RichTravsky wrote:
Bushmen do NOT occupy the huge savanna regions
of Africa -- full of large herbivores, such as
wildebeeste, zebra, antelope, and their predators;
they live in semi-desert -- where herbivores have
a much lower density, and their predators an even
lower one.
This has nothing to do with adaption to savanna. Herbivores are not a
threat
Herbivores can be a very serious threat. They
can have nasty tempers. Hippos kill more people
than any other animal in Africa. Of course, if
you hunt them, you can bet that they will turn
on you, whenever they can.
[/quote]
The biggest threat is that they eat the same thing hominids do and
that>s significant because of scarcity during the dry season (and the
predatory realities of the dry season). If these early hominids
couldn>t keep them out of their garden habitat then the result would
be starvation of the whole community and predators seeing them as weak
and vulnerable during the dry season.
[quote]
and there are predators where you go.
Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).
[/quote]
Absurde nonsense.
[quote]On such islands, they would be absolutely safe,
and able -- over tens, or hundreds of thousands
of years -- to work out how to cope with major
predators on the mainland.
is especially true for the less technological competent earlier
hominids. Not only would predation be a problem that they couldn>t
Predation is not a show stopper.
Predation is OFTEN a show-stopper. You would
not camp out on the African savanna with your
young children. The large herbivores there can
cope with predation, using speed, and the fast
movement of herds across the landscape. But a
weak slow primate could not.
Gollee, a weak and slow primate could not survive in the forests! Doesn>t leave much, eh?
Agreed. It>s a serious problem to be considered --
not dodged, as is the approved practice within PA.
[/quote]
And it>s not like any of them even have a hypothesis their defending.
They are defending vagueness.
[quote]
Australopiths had a wide range and could not
have done so with out coping strategies.
Strange 'logic' (if typical of the 'science' that is PA):
" . . since they lived there and coped with the
predators, they must have lived there and coped
with the predators . . ."
Why is it strange? You just explained why it isn>t. thanks!
Your education in science was clearly extraordinarily
limited. In science a belief is not justified by the
fact that it is a belief. That is the province of
religion -- and also (as it happens) of standard PA.
[/quote]
The fact is, Paul. They did survive predation but not because of your
silly islands. Because they stayed in treed habitat.
[quote]
Paul.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Charles
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: are "we," modern humans, about 195,000 years old or only |
|
|
On Oct 6, 10:20 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
[quote]On 5 Okt., 18:41, Charles wrote:
The three of you act as a group competing to impress each other. None
of you have any interest in trying to understand what I wrote. Your
hidden agenda is to read into what-I-do-not-say cute or fantastic
assertions. Now you will all be offended and pushed even closer in
ranks to "get back" at me. This is all just your recreation, the
recreation of professional students.
Dear Charles,
Please don“t be so touchy. I know I m slightly off topic anyway
with this Neanderthal hobby-horse of mine, and would hate to
interrupt an interesting thread for it. Still think its OK what I
wrote
though, and no pissing contest intended. Just read the words as
I wrote them in a friendly and curious mood. I speak for myself,
I am not part of a group, no student since 35 years, and a newbie
to sci-groups.
Do I have to plaster every post with smileys so
people know I`m one of the good guys?
regards, ed
[/quote]
Good responses . . .
Paul, you would point out that my conclusions are "wrong" because "the
data is incomplete." Of course the data is incomplete. It always is
and will be forever. We have to interpret it as best we can as we
accumulate it. But you realize, I hope, that the data does have to be
interpreted and, indeed, that is why it is searched for and found.
The whole function of science is to foster understanding so we can
build better technology and continue to afford to bring ever more
children into the world. . . .
I think what is going on is that you are primarily engaged or
dedicated to finding new data and so, of course, are never satisfied
with what you have. I am not a specialist as you are. I am not
specifically trained for a specific social science discipline. My
interest and what I have done all my life is work with what the
experts in some twelve different social and natural sciences say the
evidence points to. My self-agenda is to take all their interpreting
and put it together in a way that shows how we evolved socially and,
hence, can find what we need to do to deal with the present
acceleration of world problems. I am probably classifiable as a
social theorist. This is alien to you. Once I talked with a
historian about my conclusions and he waved me off calling it "cosmic
theorizing." He was trained to focus his life work on the minute
detail of ancient manuscripts and artifacts. He did his doctor thesis
on a two week period of the Burbank California Chamber of commerce in
1923.
Calder:
When you say "they" were genetically the same as "we" I am not sure
what you mean. Are you saying we are genetically the very same as the
Ancient Sapiens who emerged perhaps 195,000 years ago? If so, does
that mean there has been absolutely no further biological evolution
since then? I have read from Science Magazine that since then we have
evolved a slightly smaller cranial size, thinner legs and more
resistance to influenza. I don>t think they were mistaken. Do you?
And if there has been change, the fact that we suddenly began to take
off culturally about 40,000 years ago would seem to me to be the last
real genetic change. Before that, we lived 160,000 years with the
same more primitive stone tool/weapon technology of the Neanderthal.
Ed,
I hope you are not offended by that reference to your "friend."
Personally, I am glad we out hunted him and crowded him off the
surface of the Earth so we could have it---even killed or slaughtered
him as needed! That was pay-back for his pushing our ancestor Sapiens
back into Africa and almost dying out about 70,000 years ago after
making their first big move out of Africa. Or perhaps it was the
explosion of the Lake Toba volcanic caldera that caused caused world
weather to change and the ancients numbers down to a mere few thousand
then. No one knows.
charles |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Sweating and Brain Size |
|
|
On Oct 6, 11:44 am, Paul Crowley <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
Herbivores can be a very serious threat. They
can have nasty tempers. Hippos kill more people
than any other animal in Africa. Of course, if
you hunt them, you can bet that they will turn
on you, whenever they can.
The biggest threat is that they eat the same thing hominids do
Hominids ate grass, and leaves on acacia trees?
OK, I know what you mean (I think). Wild
animals would readily invade hominid gardens
and eat their few crops.
[/quote]
Right. And keep in mind that we were not yet ecologically dominant in
this treed habitat. (That probably didn>t happen until HE.)
[quote]
that>s significant because of scarcity during the dry season (and the
predatory realities of the dry season). If these early hominids
couldn>t keep them out of their garden habitat then the result would
be starvation of the whole community and predators seeing them as weak
and vulnerable during the dry season.
Wild animals are often a problem for farmers.
[/quote]
They were a much bigger problem in the past. Keep in mind that the
most problematic pests have, probably, become extinct in their
competition with hominids over the last 6 million years.
[quote]But the measures taken against them have not
changed much in 3 or 4 million years -- fences
made of thorn bushes, etc.
[/quote]
Yeah, so?
[quote]
and there are predators where you go.
Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).
Absurde nonsense.
Shame that you can>t say why.
[/quote]
It>s contrived, not natural.
[quote][..]
The fact is, Paul. They did survive predation but not because of your
silly islands. Because they stayed in treed habitat.
Treed habitat is the realm of chimps -- and quite
a few large predators.
[/quote]
And hominids--especially earlier hominids.
[quote]Take a look at human
children, and infants, and females especially when
heavily pregant (as would have been more common).
[/quote]
We>re not talking about humans. We>re talking about chimpanzee-like
Apith.
[quote]
Hominids managed to occupy a relatively small
number of sites, where they could keep predators
away. That was the overwhelming consideration.
[/quote]
In a monsoon forest habitat there would have been (and to a lesser
extent still are) many localities in which the conditions were/are
similar to a rainforest habitat in which they were quite comfortable--
except for the dry season when herds of food-competitors and ferocious
predators would migrate in.
[quote]All such sites were on the coast.
[/quote]
Absurd assumption.
[quote]Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.
[/quote]
Another absurd assumption. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote]Garden habitat???? LOL - what the hell is that?
It may not be exact but it is probably as good a
a term as anything else. It>s the sort of habitat
that humans do their best to recreate when they
have the opportunity -- i.e. when they have money:
well-watered, plenty of trees, lawns, ponds and
other water features, not much in the way of
dense brush.
Your proof that erectus had gardens -
[/quote]
It>s my time machine. I>d invite you to try,
but you are liable either to be disintegrated
or to finish up on a strange planet at a
strange time. Still, you>re probably used
to that.
[quote]And while you>re at it, reconcile that with the fact erectus ranged far
in the old world - like Africa, southwest Asia, China, and Indonesia.
[/quote]
Of course, you are right. I forgot. These
guys spent so much time travelling, going
from one end of their range to the other,
they>d have had no time for gardening.
Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Sweating and Brain Size |
|
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]Herbivores can be a very serious threat. They
can have nasty tempers. Hippos kill more people
than any other animal in Africa. Of course, if
you hunt them, you can bet that they will turn
on you, whenever they can.
The biggest threat is that they eat the same thing hominids do
[/quote]
Hominids ate grass, and leaves on acacia trees?
OK, I know what you mean (I think). Wild
animals would readily invade hominid gardens
and eat their few crops.
[quote]that>s significant because of scarcity during the dry season (and the
predatory realities of the dry season). If these early hominids
couldn>t keep them out of their garden habitat then the result would
be starvation of the whole community and predators seeing them as weak
and vulnerable during the dry season.
[/quote]
Wild animals are often a problem for farmers.
But the measures taken against them have not
changed much in 3 or 4 million years -- fences
made of thorn bushes, etc.
[quote]and there are predators where you go.
Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).
Absurde nonsense.
[/quote]
Shame that you can>t say why.
[..]
[quote]The fact is, Paul. They did survive predation but not because of your
silly islands. Because they stayed in treed habitat.
[/quote]
Treed habitat is the realm of chimps -- and quite
a few large predators. Take a look at human
children, and infants, and females especially when
heavily pregant (as would have been more common).
Hominids managed to occupy a relatively small
number of sites, where they could keep predators
away. That was the overwhelming consideration.
All such sites were on the coast. Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.
Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: Re: Sweating and Brain Size |
|
|
Snipped all the irrelevancies.
If one wants to discuss "sweating & brain size" one has to discuss
1) sweating,
2) brain size.
1)
sweat = water + salt + ...
GA Bartholomew & F Wilke 1956 J.Mammal.37:327-333
Body temperature in the northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus
FH Pough & TJ Clade p.769-792
in WN McFarland cs 1979 "Vertebrate life" Collier NY
p.773 on Pribilof furseal:
.... Almost any activity on land causes the seals to pant & raise their hind
flippers abundantly supplied with sweat glands & wave them about ...
Morphology and distribution of Sweat Glands in the Cape fur seal,
Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Carnivora : Otariidae)
LS Rotherham, M van der Merwe, MN Bester & WH Oosthuizen 2005
Austr.J.Zool.53:295300
.... SGs were present in both fur-covered & naked skin areas ... apocrine SG
density did not differ among the body regions, but apo- & eccrine SGs were
larger in naked skin areas than in fur-covered ...
No wonder human ancestors evolved abundant thermo-active eccrine glands when
they dispersed along the coasts ("out of Africa 1").
2)
brains
- Most arboreal mammals (primates etc.) have brains about twice as big as
those of terrestrial mammals.
- Most marine mammals (otters, dolphins...) have brains about 3 x as big as
those of terrestrials.
- Humans have ex-arboreal waterside ancestors during the Pleistocene, no
wonder our brains are about 2 x 3 x as big as expected.
Brain-specific fatty acids (DHA etc.) are abundant in aquatic foods
(google "Cunnane Crawford" or so).
Shellfish etc. have to be opened with hard (eg, stone) tools.
The Mojokerto child 1.8 Ma lay in marine sediments among shellfish.
All elements are there before our noses, we only have to see them.
But no, PAs prefer to run after kudus over hot & dry African plains...
http://users.ugent.be/%7Emvaneech/Verhaegen et al. 2007. Econiche of
Homo.pdf
http://users.ugent.be/%7Emvaneech/Verhaegen & Munro. New directions in
palaeoanthropology.pdf |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: Re: endurance running & fish eating |
|
|
[quote]http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080926/sc_livescience/iditaroddogsendu
rancesecretrevealed;_ylt=AlhBmhsTNwnwEV_0cNo.0wLQOrgF
"Iditarod Dogs' Endurance Secret Revealed"
Nothing about fish
[/quote]
no, my little boy, only something on endurance runners = dogs
SFs are stupid stupid stupid |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Neandertals ate mammoths, shellfish, turtles, woolly rh |
|
|
Savanna Fool:
[quote]Mammoths were waterside animals?
[/quote]
my little boy,
- do you think mammoths never were waterside??
- do you really believe Hn ran after mammoths on the tundra??
- do you think dolphins live on land??
why don>t you read the paper, my boy??
CB Stringer cs 2008 PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.0805474105
"Neanderthal exploitation of marine mammals in Gibraltar"
SFs are stupid stupid stupid |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: Re: PAs don>t confirm AAT |
|
|
[quote]Savanna Fool now thinks "marine exploitation" is nto about AAT:
... the recent news about giant clams indicates that the amount of marine
exploitation by both neanderthals and early modern humans may have been
underestimated
http://tinyurl.com/44xubg
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]That>s a link to a blog,
Read the PNAS paper, dud.
and it has nothing about aat.
If you meant a PNAS paper, it was stupid to post a link to a blog ;)
[/quote]
Liar: I posted both the abstract & the blog.
CB Stringer cs 2008 PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.0805474105
"Neanderthal exploitation of marine mammals in Gibraltar"
SFs are stupid stupid stupid. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Re: "I>ve never liked the Savannah hypothesis.Thesavannahone |
|
|
SF still thinks that because some humans run after kudus, our ancestors did
that.
No doubt, this fool also believes that because some humans walked on the
moon, our ancestors did that.
SFs are stupid stupid stupid.
______
Op 06-10-2008 05:03, in artikel 48E98014.6E318C9B@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
[quote]Marc Verhaegen wrote:
SF belives that all humans are bushmen:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/1ea478ea599c5540?dmo
de=source&hl=en
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
Humans are no long-distance species.
Interesting what can be seen on the Discovery TV Channel. I saw a TV
episode about a nice little African bushman. He was running down some sort
of gazelle or antelope (apparently a perfectly healthy example). He just
kept running after the poor (4-legged) beast and he just kept running and
running and running. After about four hours of running in the mid-day sun,
he was able to simply walk up and toss a spear into the poor exhausted
beast. I presume that he then spent the rest of the day butchering it and
carrying it back. The bushman didn>t seem to be the slightest bit fazed
by the whole process. All in a day>s work for him I suppose.
...
Yes, very interesting, but it>s about Bushmen, recently (after the
sapiens LCA) savanna-adapted humans, not about the majority of human beings.
You
RECENTLY SAVANNA ADAPTED HUMANS???
WHY DO YOU SHOUT?? CAN>T YOU READ??
So, humans CAN adapt to the savanna?
Why not IYO??
...
Op 22-09-2008 06:33, in artikel 48D72035.26256695@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Savanna Fools now claims that if A belongs to B, B belongs to A:
Aquatic fool now claims that Bushmen aren>t humans...
Op 12-09-2008 19:23, in artikel 48CAA57B.8246DCB8@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
SF too stupid to discern between rare populations today & the sapiens
LCA
200 ka:
SF:
How do you think we got savanna adapted, Marc?
we?? you>re crazy: some bushmen you mean perhaps??
Bushmen are humans, Marc.
And savanna fools are stupid, my boy.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: Re: Born To Run: What Humans Really Evolved To Do |
|
|
Savanna Fool doesn>t know that humans run at most 36 km/hr, and that
H.erectus were much heavier hence slower.
Cursorials like dogs & horses are lightly-built, the opposite of erectus.
[quote]The article suggests that the first running
hominid was Homo erectus.
What the article suggests here is obviously wrong: erectus were very
heavily-built creatures, unlike cursorials (canids, equids...).
This does not preclude running. Even obese moderns can run. *You* can
run.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: Re: H.floresiensis = dwarfed island form of H.erectus |
|
|
Savanna Fool now thinks he can walk to Flores:
[quote]But they can walk to the coast...
of course, my little boy, but that doesn>t explain why humans can hold their
breath for a few minutes
SFs are stupid stupid stupid
aquatic fool Marc thinks they swam to Flores.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Marc Verhaegen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: Re: fossil bias |
|
|
SF now thinks dolphins live in freshwater:
[quote]A fossil beaked whale (Cetacea; Ziphiidae) from the Miocene of Kenya
JG Mead 1975 J.Paleont.49:745-751
... found in association with a freshwater-terrestrial fauna ...
Are you saying whales inhabited shorelines?
You couldn>t have picked a worse example - this one is funny.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: Re: Sweating and Brain Size |
|
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]They were a much bigger problem in the past. Keep in mind that the
most problematic pests have, probably, become extinct in their
competition with hominids over the last 6 million years.
But the measures taken against them have not
changed much in 3 or 4 million years -- fences
made of thorn bushes, etc.
Yeah, so?
[/quote]
I am really saying that such 'gardens' would best
be in places with a certain amount of natural
protection -- the head of a valley, for example.
[quote]and there are predators where you go.
Predation is normally a very serious problem --
which has to be faced. But one way of hominids
would have 'dealt' with it, was by having bases
on offshore islands (similar to modern Zanzibar).
Absurde nonsense.
Shame that you can>t say why.
It>s contrived, not natural.
[/quote]
You think that only because you could
not work it out yourself.
[quote]Treed habitat is the realm of chimps -- and quite
a few large predators.
And hominids--especially earlier hominids.
[/quote]
Nonsense. Like standard PA you have not got
a grasp of basic ecology. The new species
occupied a niche, and established almost
everything at the start.
[quote]Take a look at human
children, and infants, and females especially when
heavily pregant (as would have been more common).
We>re not talking about humans. We>re talking about chimpanzee-like
Apith.
[/quote]
They were chimpanzee-like only in their brain
size. Almost everything else was established.
That>s how speciation works. Do you think
(for example) that flamingoes gradually got
longer necks, or worked their way to salt-lakes
through a series of less salty ones, over a
period of a few million years?
[quote]Hominids managed to occupy a relatively small
number of sites, where they could keep predators
away. That was the overwhelming consideration.
In a monsoon forest habitat there would have been (and to a lesser
extent still are) many localities in which the conditions were/are
similar to a rainforest habitat in which they were quite comfortable--
except for the dry season when herds of food-competitors and ferocious
predators would migrate in.
[/quote]
Your populations are supposed to be isolated.
[quote]All such sites were on the coast.
Absurd assumption.
[/quote]
Neither an assumption nor absurd.
[quote]Of course, that
was also the hominid habitat, since before huts
and fire, the coast was the only place where
nocturnal temperatures were high enough, and
condensation low enough, for conditions to be
tolerable to hominid young and infants.
Another absurd assumption.
[/quote]
Try sleeping outside sometime, entirely naked,
and without any kind of tent or other covering.
Then try to imagine an infant doing the same.
Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
