Claudius Denk
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Rift Valley wetter one million years ago? |
 |
|
On Jul 26, 1:46 pm, "Paul Crowley"
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
[quote]"Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote in messagenews:svadnWPVOqF_1RbVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com...
If you had some smidgeon of respect for the
literature, you>d know that. But please prattle on --you
figure largely in my research on the depth and breadth
of human stupidity and I need the data.
A Savanna-Theory still reigns -- namely
that hominids (i.e. human ancestors) lived
there for millions of years. Even if the
original Savanna-Theory (that they began
there as well) is no longer held -- at least
within the ivory towers of PA academe.
But humans do and have lived on the savanna
Sure -- in recent centuries (or decades)
with cattle or goats to tend, and it was
then really only since they got firearms.
But 'the savanna' is a distinct ecosystem
that occupies vast areas of Africa.
[/quote]
The intellectually dishonest strategy of conventional theorist is to
dumb-down the meaning of savanna so that any attempt to pin them down
to an actual scenario is completely avoided. It>s plainly obvious
that hominid physiology is completely incompatible with treeless
savanna habitat. Moreover the fossil evidence confirms this by way of
the fact that hominid fossils are never found at locations that were
not both well treed but even well watered at the time they were lain
down.
[quote]If hominids had been successful on a small
part of it, how come -- with advancing
technology and brain-power -- they did
not occupy all of it, and have a population
in the billions?
[/quote]
Right. This is so obvious that conventional theorists can do nothing
but pretend to ignore this evidence.
[quote]so your feigned disbelief is comical.
How come you can>t name any of those
huge tribes that have been living on
the savanna for a few million years?
What is
a "savanna", Pauly? Is it a short grass prairie?
It occupies much of Africa, and is
mostly grass.
So what? Are you really claiming that the
new version is better than the old one?
The new theory ~always~ trumps the old one.
Only in PA, and only because it becomes
the new (brain-dead) fashion.
That>s called evolution.
The evolution of stupidity is the
outstanding feature of PA.
What I>m claiming is that
in this instance, the new one is more accurate.
Sure, what>s wrong with yet another
niche-swap -- never minding the
strange fact that there are no humans
on the savanna.
[/quote]
Well stated. Gratuitous niche swapping is the clearest indication we
have that the person suggesting such is ignorant about how organisms
actually evolve.
[quote]After all, what is unparsimonious about
another yet another niche-swap. As we
see throughout nature, taxa swap niches
all the time. Frogs were once birds that
flew in the air; sharks were once dogs;
worms used to be peacocks. It all makes
sense in PA-fantasy land.
It>s not that difficult for an omnivorous primate with the
physique and behavioral repertoire necessary to move
from one substrate to another --especially if driven by
gradual climate change.
What other taxon has ever been 'driven
by gradual climate change' to LEAVE
one habitat and occupy another?
When has it ever been suggested or
even hinted as a possibility about any
other taxon?
[/quote]
Right. Human evolution, unlike a lot of other species, is greatly
influenced by group dynamics (group selection) which are in an of
themselves gradualstic. This is what has caused the human species to
evolve in a gradualistic manner. Conventional theorists (being almost
completely ignorant about how organisms actually evolve) have chosen
to interpret the gradualism that is evident in human evolution as a
result of gradual climate change. (Assuming you can even get them to
discuss this subject.) But this is absurd. Because what we see in
other species that are contemporaneous with humans as we evolved is
stasis--no gradual evolution.
More specifically, the fact that human evolution has been gradualistic
in comparison to the other species in our fauna (the ethiopian fauna)
is the best clue we have that humans evolution *from the outset* has
been greatly influenced by group dynamics (group selelction).
[quote]Nothing illustrates the blind ignorance
and total incompetence of modern PA
better than this.
[/quote]
The mother of all irony is that human group selection has caused us to
evolve in such a manner that that group selective theories of human
evolution are taboo.
[quote]Set beside you, AAT theories look
rational.
[/quote]
With respect to its vagueness and general ignorance of evolutionary
processes I see no difference between AAT and conventional theory. |
|
