Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Rift Valley wetter one million years ago?

Guest

Hi,

Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
Were there more lakes in the area at that time?

If so then this would provide some support for the Aquatic Ape theory
of human evolution.

John

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 25, 1:17 am, eastm...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]Hi,

Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
Were there more lakes in the area at that time?
[/quote]
"A variety of data, including the presence of rootlet holes and reed
casts in Tuff IB has led to the interpretation that FLKNN was
situated
in the lake margin zone ca. 1 km from the paleo-lake (Leakey, 1971).

"At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along the former stream
channels away from the playa lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976.

Isaac (1977):
Page 21: "The archaeological materials are consentrated in floodplain
deposits
that were generally at least 1 kilometer distant from stable lake
waters (see table 6, chapt 4).
Page 84: "Where the relationship of sites to laterally equivalent
lacustrine deposits can be traced, the indications are that the sites
were a
considerabledistance from the standing waters (see table 6). There are
goods reasons for camping
some distance from standing fresh water. The mosquitoes are so
prodigiously dense
the any Masai and Sonjo camps within a mile of the swamps are
furnished with sleeping
platforms raised 10 to 15 ft, in order to reduce the sleepers
discomfort."

Table 6 lists 18 sites: all 1 to 3 km from stable lake waters. This is
the identical
distance the Hadza camp away from water sources today.

Isaac, Glynn L. 1977
Olorgesailie: Archeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake
Basin in Kenya.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

J. F. O>Connell, K. Hawkes, K. D. Lupo and N. G. Blurton Jones
Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene
archaeology
Journal of Human Evolution Vol 43(6)
December 2002, Pages 831-872

"The common presence of large
predators, especially in the late dry,
makes them (water holes) dangerous places, especially at
night, even for hunters in thorn-walled
blinds. Women and children rarely visit
these locations after dark. Among the
Hadza, base camps are almost always established
in other settings, 10–20 minutes
walk from permanent water, generally
outside riparian habitats, especially in the
dry season."

[quote]
If so then this would provide some support for the Aquatic Ape theory
of human evolution.
[/quote]
As you can see, then as now, waterside locations are dangerous places.
"considerable distance" from standing water is the key here. Also, no
known
permanent home bases have been discovered, waterside or anywhere
else. Only butcher sites, dry stream beds, and
lithic quarry sites show repeated use. The distribution of stone
tools show early Homo utilized all parts of the Rift basins and the
areas inbetween basins.

Most early sites do have a few things in common; close associations
with ostriches, cheetahs, land tortoises, large butchered animals such
as rhinos, elephants, and antelope.

We also know what they were eating by the isotope composition of the
teeth, which shows a C4 signature (savanna plants and animals). So to
answer your statement, no, there is no evidence what-so-ever lakeside
locations were favored.

[quote]
John[/quote]

Eldergeek · Guest

<eastmond@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a7937c4-1c26-43d4-bf28-0e9b31fab65c@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Hi,

Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
Were there more lakes in the area at that time?

If so then this would provide some support for the Aquatic Ape theory
of human evolution.

John
[/quote]
I suppose it depends on which "aquatic ape theory" you mean.

Some posters seem to think that all our ancestors had to do was look at a
body of water and suddenly they walked on two legs and lost body hair.

We don>t know when many of the soft features of human anatomy, such as body
hair, sweating mechanisms and body fat distributions emerged. We do have a
body of evidence about bipedalism and changes in brain size. We know that
bipedalism emerged before changes in brain size occurred.

The word "savannah" does not refer to a desert or arid grassland, but rather
to a habitat with a patchy distribution of resources, including individual
trees, clumps of trees and bodies of water, many of which are surrounded by
gallary forests. Hominid fossils are found in association with this kind
of environment.

The climate at the time hominids emerged was wetter than today but was
transitioning to a drier climate. Forrests were shrinking. Some of the
earliest hominid fossils very clearly show a partially arboreal adaptation,
indicating that the transition from fully arboreal to partially arboreal to
terrestrial bipedalism is the most paramonous explanation. My own personal
interpretation of the data is the bipedalism emerged as a means to allow
protohominids to exploit habitat bordering on the savannah, that is
peripheral forests and gallery forests that extended onto the savannah.
They were able to move from forest out into clumps of trees, exploiting a
mixed habitat which included bodies of water, gallary forests and savaanah
forest (scattered tree clumps surrounded by grasslands).

Those who favor aquatic ape hypothese often refer to "THE SAVANNAH THEORY"
when in fact there is no such thing. Rather, the expansion of the African
savannah is tied to theories of human evolution, particularly the orgin of
bipedalism in hominids because it was a habitat that was expanding and
because early hominid fossils are usually found in association with this
kind of habitat.

Marc refers to "savannah idiots" and this seems to be anyone who challenges
his somewhat stained connections of different facts to his own ideas.

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

[quote]Hi,
Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
Were there more lakes in the area at that time?
If so then this would provide some support for the Aquatic Ape theory
of human evolution.
[/quote]
Hi John,

M.Trauth cs.2005 "Late Cenozoic Moisture History of East Africa" Science
309:2051-3 ... "Lake sediments in 10 Ethopian, Kenyan & Tanzanian
rift-basins suggest that there were 3 humid periods, at 2.72.5, 1.91.7 &
1.10.9 Ma, superimposed on the longer-term aridification of E.Africa.
These humid periods correlate with increased aridity in NW & NE.Africa &
with substantial global climate transitions."

At 1.8 Ma (high lake level) there were apparently connections with the sea:
stingrays (& Homo) appeared in the Rift (Feibel).

Some support, yes perhaps, but what we see in the fossil & archeol.record
are mostly the side-branches of the basic Homo populations at the coasts,
eg,
O.Huffman cs.2006 "Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery site
near Perning, East Java" ... "The Mojokerto child probably died along the
ancient sea-coast"
Although most traces of this seaside lifestyle have been washed away by the
tides & changing sea levels etc., numerous Homo fossils & tools have been
found at ancient seasides throughout the Pleistocene.

The Rift is often about australopiths, but these have nothing to do with
AAT: AAT is mostly about waterside adaptations in the genus Homo during the
Pleistocene (erectus, georgicus & later).

--Marc Verhaegen

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
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

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Eldergeek" <pan762@yahoodot.com> wrote in message
news:mpqik.237920$pm2.144300@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...

[quote]Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
[/quote]
Around a million years ago -- and for nearly all
of the past 2.4 Myr, the world as a whole was
very much drier -- and very much dustier.
Water was locked into huge sheets of ice, at
both poles. Dig down into old ice fields, and
you will know when you get to ice that is from
12 kya -- it will be much darker, from the wind-
blown dust.

[quote]Were there more lakes in the area at that time?
[/quote]
No. Fewer, smaller and colder.

[quote]If so then this would provide some support for the Aquatic Ape theory
of human evolution.
[/quote]
Nothing can provide more support for such
a crazy theory. Any investigation of the
facts, or any clear thought, will show that
it is nonsense.

[quote]We don>t know when many of the soft features of human anatomy, such as body hair, sweating
mechanisms and body fat distributions emerged.
[/quote]
We can assume that hominids form a taxon
much like any other and that all distinctive
features emerged at the same time -- when
the niche was established. Otoh, we can
assume that the rules of nature do not apply
to hominids. That is the general rule applied
around here.

[quote]The word "savannah" does not refer to a desert or arid grassland, but rather to a habitat with
a patchy distribution of resources, including individual trees, clumps of trees and bodies of
water, many of which are surrounded by gallary forests. Hominid fossils are found in
association with this kind of environment.
[/quote]
Savanna has two main types of animal
species. Those that eat grass, and those
that eat the grass-eaters. Humans don>t
eat grass, and are clearly only occasional
carnivores. We have no adaptations for
scavenging -- abominating bad meat and
being unable to cope with carnivore-level
vitamin A.

Also -- apart from relatively recent
pastoralists -- no humans live on the
savanna. Savanna theory is just as
nutty as aquatic ape theories.

[quote]The climate at the time hominids emerged was wetter than today but was transitioning to a
drier climate. Forrests were shrinking.
[/quote]
Ignorant trash. Forests come and go over
decades. They are constantly shrinking and
expanding. You might as well try to explain
earthquakes as being the consequence of
shrinking and expanding clouds. Wholly
different timescales apply.

[quote]Some of the earliest hominid fossils very clearly show a partially arboreal adaptation,
[/quote]
No they don>t. Hominids clearly derived
from tree-living animals (i.e. chimps).
But those 'adaptations' remained only as
fossil traces, in the way whales have the
remnants of hind legs.

[quote]indicating that the transition from fully arboreal to partially arboreal to terrestrial
bipedalism is the most paramonous explanation.
[/quote]
Pure nonsense. ONE new niche was found
for a new bipedal taxon. If it had remained
in the trees, it would have had to compete
with its ancestors (chimps). It didn>t. It left
the trees.

[quote]My own personal interpretation of the data is the bipedalism emerged as a means to allow
protohominids to exploit habitat bordering on the savannah,
[/quote]
Eating grass?

[quote]that is peripheral forests and gallery forests that extended onto the savannah.
[/quote]
Such forests are occupied by chimps.
Hominids could not compete with them
in forests.

[quote]They were able to move from forest out into clumps of trees, exploiting a mixed habitat which
included bodies of water, gallary forests and savaanah forest (scattered tree clumps
surrounded by grasslands).
[/quote]
That is exactly what chimps do -- when there
are no lions (or other large predators) around.
Hominids would have had no advantages
over chimps in this ground -- and huge
disadvantages.

[quote]Those who favor aquatic ape hypothese often refer to "THE SAVANNAH THEORY" when in fact there
is no such thing.
[/quote]
You>ve just spelled it out. It is so bad that
any sensible lay-person should prefer the
aquatic ape theories. They do, at least,
provide explanations (if next-to-crazy ones).

[quote]Rather, the expansion of the African savannah is tied to theories of human evolution,
particularly the orgin of bipedalism in hominids
[/quote]
Hideous. There is not one remotely
sensible theory about the origin of
bipedalism related to a savanna
habitat. That>s one reason why you
don>t set any out.

[quote]because it was a habitat that was expanding
[/quote]
Curiously, African savannas have long been
remarkable for one thing -- the absence of
humans (up to the invention of guns and
the like). Yet that very distinct absence is
no handicap whatever to half-witted PA
types with crazy theories. Apart from the
complete lack of matter edible by humans
on the savanna, there is also their inability
to cope with its fauna and flora. The
tsetse fly for example.

[quote]and because early hominid fossils are usually found in association with this kind of habitat.
[/quote]
Human fossils litter Everest close to its
summit. But that does not mean that
anyone ever lived there. Hominids who
found themselves on the savanna rarely
lived long.

[quote]Marc refers to "savannah idiots" and this seems to be anyone who challenges his somewhat
stained connections of different facts to his own ideas.
[/quote]
Marc is right about 'savanna idiots' --
if wrong about nearly everything else.
To quote that great authority:

"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message news:ouCdnRA3_44Vph7VnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@comcast.com...

[quote]Debunking the "Savanna Theory" isn>t difficult.
[/quote]

Paul.

Makouli · Guest

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:h0tik.26521$j7.472070@news.indigo.ie...
[quote]"Eldergeek" <pan762@yahoodot.com> wrote in message
news:mpqik.237920$pm2.144300@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...

Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
[/quote]
[various and sundry crap]

[quote]Marc refers to "savannah idiots" and this seems to be anyone who
challenges his somewhat
stained connections of different facts to his own ideas.

Marc is right about 'savanna idiots' --
if wrong about nearly everything else.
To quote that great authority:
[/quote]
Marco has never been right about anything in
his entire wasted life. In that, he>s just like you,
Pauly. He uses the "savanna X" as a bludgeon
in his efforts to revive a dead horse. He does it,
no doubt, to distract his very bored readers from
the fact that he hasn>t produced data in support of
his liquid fantasies in the ten-odd years he>s been
posting on SAP. He (and you) have missed the fact
that Anthropology has moved on since the 30>s and 40>s
--the last and latest data to enter your ossified heads.
No one believes that human ancestors aquired their
bipedalism on a short grass prairie as in the very annoying
chorus belted out regularly by you two ignoramuses.
That may have been some kind of working hypothesis
when your momma lost her honor to all those sailors
but no thinking person considers it today for more than
a second. 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.

[quote]"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message
news:ouCdnRA3_44Vph7VnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@comcast.com...

Debunking the "Savanna Theory" isn>t difficult.
[/quote]
....But *supporting* the wet ape nonsense is. (Or
anything that issues from ~your~ mouth, Pauly).

[quote]Paul.
==============================[/quote]
"But you can>t begin to specify what the
benefit of a 'better brain' would be for
the adult." --Paul Crowley 03/17/2004

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

SF:
[quote]"A variety of data, including the presence of rootlet holes and reed
casts in Tuff IB has led to the interpretation that FLKNN was
situated
in the lake margin zone ca. 1 km from the paleo-lake (Leakey, 1971).
[/quote]
Yes, Turkana Boy also lay amid reeds, catfish, hippo prints etc.

[quote]"At Olduvai the Acheulean sites tend to lie along the former stream
channels away from the playa lakes." Hay 1967a, 1976.
[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]Isaac (1977):
Page 21: "The archaeological materials are consentrated in floodplain
deposits
that were generally at least 1 kilometer distant from stable lake
waters (see table 6, chapt 4).
[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]Page 84: "Where the relationship of sites to laterally equivalent
lacustrine deposits can be traced, the indications are that the sites
were a
considerable distance from the standing waters (see table 6).
[/quote]
Well possible.

[quote]There are goods reasons for camping
some distance from standing fresh water. The mosquitoes are so
prodigiously dense
the any Masai and Sonjo camps within a mile of the swamps are
furnished with sleeping
platforms raised 10 to 15 ft, in order to reduce the sleepers
discomfort."
[/quote]
Typical just-so savanna-biased thinking: they assume that Homo 2 Ma was the
same as a few remote inland Hs populations today. Don>t they know that most
humans today still live next to seas, rivers etc.??

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Jul 26, 12:08 am, "Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote:
[quote]"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
"Eldergeek" <pan...@yahoodot.com> wrote in message

Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?

[various and sundry crap]

Marc refers to "savannah idiots" and this seems to be anyone who
challenges his somewhat
stained connections of different facts to his own ideas.

Marc is right about 'savanna idiots' --
if wrong about nearly everything else.
To quote that great authority:

Marco has never been right about anything in
his entire wasted life. In that, he>s just like you,
Pauly. He uses the "savanna X" as a bludgeon
in his efforts to revive a dead horse. He does it,
no doubt, to distract his very bored readers from
the fact that he hasn>t produced data in support of
his liquid fantasies in the ten-odd years he>s been
posting on SAP.
[/quote]
You anthro majors are almost perfectly ignorant of scientific methods/
procedures. It>s not the role of a theorist to "produce data in
support" of a theory. It>s the role of a theorist to produce theory
that is consistent (and not contradicted by) the evidence.

When have you produced any evidence that supports your own theory--oh,
that>s right, you don>t even have a theory!

[quote]He (and you) have missed the fact
that Anthropology has moved on since the 30>s and 40>s
--the last and latest data to enter your ossified heads.
[/quote]
Keep in mind the rest of the universe does not have direct access to
your imagination.

[quote]No one believes that human ancestors aquired their
bipedalism on a short grass prairie as in the very annoying
chorus belted out regularly by you two ignoramuses.
[/quote]
That>s right. In fact you have no hypothesis at all! Right? (Answer
the question you evasive twit.)

[quote]That may have been some kind of working hypothesis
when your momma lost her honor to all those sailors
but no thinking person considers it today for more than
a second.
[/quote]
Why would a "thinking person" not consider any and all alternatives?

[quote]If you had some smidgeon of respect for the
literature, you>d know that.
[/quote]
"The literature?" There is no such thing as "the literature" you
mental retard. If you have specific facts to refer to then refer to
them and stop whining.

[quote]But please prattle on --you
figure largely in my research on the depth and breadth
of human stupidity and I need the data.
[/quote]
Your commitment to human stupidity has never been in doubt.

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

frustrated SF:

[quote]Marco has never been right about anything in
his entire wasted life.
[/quote]
:-D

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message news:g_6dnZkO079tUBfVnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

[quote]Marc is right about 'savanna idiots' --
if wrong about nearly everything else.
To quote that great authority:

Marco has never been right about anything in
his entire wasted life. In that, he>s just like you,
Pauly. He uses the "savanna X" as a bludgeon
in his efforts to revive a dead horse. He does it,
no doubt, to distract his very bored readers from
the fact that he hasn>t produced data in support of
his liquid fantasies in the ten-odd years he>s been
posting on SAP. He (and you) have missed the fact
that Anthropology has moved on since the 30>s and 40>s
--the last and latest data to enter your ossified heads.
No one believes that human ancestors aquired their
bipedalism on a short grass prairie as in the very annoying
chorus belted out regularly by you two ignoramuses.
[/quote]
Agreed -- and I neither said nor implied
that -- BUT standard PA has these new
bipeds moving into the savanna at some
point (having got bored with whatever
niche they initially occupied -- the one
that allowed them to become bipedal).

[quote]That may have been some kind of working hypothesis
when your momma lost her honor to all those sailors
but no thinking person considers it today for more than
a second.
[/quote]
All this is in your own mind, Mikey.
As ever, you are spitting out your
dribble, raving on about something
no one else has mentioned, or even
thought about.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

So what? Are you really claiming that the
new version is better than the old one?
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.

Paul.

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Jul 26, 8:55 am, "Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote:
[quote]"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
"Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote in message

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
[/quote]
The only way you could be more vague would be if you said humans do
live on the earth. Part of "the savanna" have trees. Parts have
water. Parts are treeless. Parts are brushy. Parts are dry. So
your statement is meaningless.

[quote]so your feigned disbelief is comical. What is
a "savanna", Pauly? Is it a short grass prairie?
[/quote]
Partly.

[quote]
So what? Are you really claiming that the
new version is better than the old one?

The new theory ~always~ trumps the old one.
That>s called evolution. What I>m claiming is that
in this instance, the new one is more accurate.
[/quote]
Yes, buy only because it is more vague.

[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
[/quote]
This is an absurd comment.

--especially if driven by
[quote]gradual climate change. We>re not talking frog to bird,
dog to fish here. This is simply your ghastly
misrepresentation.

Paul.

=============================> "What is wrong (or stupid) about my statement?"
Pauly --7/28/2007- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Claudius Denk · Guest

On Jul 25, 1:08 pm, "Eldergeek" <pan...@yahoodot.com> wrote:
[quote]eastm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4a7937c4-1c26-43d4-bf28-0e9b31fab65c@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Hi,

Was the climate of the Rift Valley in Africa wetter about a million
years ago?
Were there more lakes in the area at that time?

If so then this would provide some support for the Aquatic Ape theory
of human evolution.

John

I suppose it depends on which "aquatic ape theory" you mean.

Some posters seem to think that all our ancestors had to do was look at a
body of water and suddenly they walked on two legs and lost body hair.
[/quote]
True. And the same is true for savanna theorists by substituing
treeless habitat for water.

[quote]
We don>t know when many of the soft features of human anatomy, such as body
hair, sweating mechanisms and body fat distributions emerged. We do have a
body of evidence about bipedalism and changes in brain size. We know that
bipedalism emerged before changes in brain size occurred.
[/quote]
Yes, and we can assume that with the emergence of bipedalism there
must have been a shift to a different lifestyle from that of their
chimpanzee-like ancestors.

[quote]
The word "savannah" does not refer to a desert or arid grassland, but rather
to a habitat with a patchy distribution of resources, including individual
trees, clumps of trees and bodies of water, many of which are surrounded by
gallary forests. Hominid fossils are found in association with this kind
of environment.
[/quote]
You missed the most significant detail: a shift to a monsoon climate
(wet season, dry season). This shift in climate is what underlies the
patchiness of the distribution of resources that you indicated above.

[quote]
The climate at the time hominids emerged was wetter than today but was
transitioning to a drier climate. Forrests were shrinking.
[/quote]
Kind of. But this is too vague to be of any value.

[quote]Some of the
earliest hominid fossils very clearly show a partially arboreal adaptation,
indicating that the transition from fully arboreal to partially arboreal to
terrestrial bipedalism is the most paramonous explanation.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote]My own personal
interpretation of the data is the bipedalism emerged as a means to allow
protohominids to exploit habitat bordering on the savannah, that is
peripheral forests and gallery forests that extended onto the savannah.
[/quote]
This doesn>t explain much of anything at all.

Bipedalism emerged as one part of a larger strategy to survive the dry
season and the predatory implications thereof.

[quote]They were able to move from forest out into clumps of trees, exploiting a
mixed habitat which included bodies of water, gallary forests and savaanah
forest (scattered tree clumps surrounded by grasslands).

Those who favor aquatic ape hypothese often refer to "THE SAVANNAH THEORY"
when in fact there is no such thing. Rather, the expansion of the African
savannah is tied to theories of human evolution, particularly the orgin of
bipedalism in hominids because it was a habitat that was expanding and
because early hominid fossils are usually found in association with this
kind of habitat.
[/quote]
Vague.

[quote]
Marc refers to "savannah idiots" and this seems to be anyone who challenges
his somewhat strained connections of different facts to his own ideas.[/quote]

Makouli · Guest

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:O9Dik.26523$j7.472148@news.indigo.ie...
[quote]"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message
news:g_6dnZkO079tUBfVnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...

[snip]

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.
[/quote]
But humans do and have lived on the savanna
so your feigned disbelief is comical. What is
a "savanna", Pauly? Is it a short grass prairie?

[quote]So what? Are you really claiming that the
new version is better than the old one?
[/quote]
The new theory ~always~ trumps the old one.
That>s called evolution. What I>m claiming is that
in this instance, the new one is more accurate.

[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.
[/quote]
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. We>re not talking frog to bird,
dog to fish here. This is simply your ghastly
misrepresentation.

[quote]Paul.
==============================[/quote]
"What is wrong (or stupid) about my statement?"
Pauly --7/28/2007

Makouli · Guest

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:78dbb10c-8a10-49cd-893a-6f79e0ae5757@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 12:08 am, "Makouli" <m...@work.com> wrote:
[quote]"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
"Eldergeek" <pan...@yahoodot.com> wrote in message
[/quote]
[blah, blah]

[quote]If you had some smidgeon of respect for the
literature, you>d know that.
[/quote]
<Dinky> "The literature?" There is no such thing as "the literature" you
<Dinky> mental retard. If you have specific facts to refer to then refer to
<Dinky> them and stop whining.

Still having problems with the attributes, I see.

[quote]But please prattle on --you
figure largely in my research on the depth and breadth
of human stupidity and I need the data.
[/quote]
<Dinky> Your commitment to human stupidity has never been in doubt.

"Your commitment to human stupidity has
never been in doubt." Dimmy -- 07/26/2008

There>s a nice .sig. You can always depend on
Dimmy for some rich irony.

===============================
"The halls of science are populated by
many pretenders." Dimmy -- 04/21/2008

Paul Crowley · Guest

"Makouli" <men@work.com> wrote in message news:svadnWPVOqF_1RbVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com...

[quote]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
[/quote]
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. 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]so your feigned disbelief is comical.
[/quote]
How come you can>t name any of those
huge tribes that have been living on
the savanna for a few million years?

[quote]What is
a "savanna", Pauly? Is it a short grass prairie?
[/quote]
It occupies much of Africa, and is
mostly grass.

[quote]So what? Are you really claiming that the
new version is better than the old one?

The new theory ~always~ trumps the old one.
[/quote]
Only in PA, and only because it becomes
the new (brain-dead) fashion.

[quote]That>s called evolution.
[/quote]
The evolution of stupidity is the
outstanding feature of PA.

[quote]What I>m claiming is that
in this instance, the new one is more accurate.
[/quote]
Sure, what>s wrong with yet another
niche-swap -- never minding the
strange fact that there are no humans
on the savanna.

[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.
[/quote]
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?

Nothing illustrates the blind ignorance
and total incompetence of modern PA
better than this.

Set beside you, AAT theories look
rational.

Paul.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2