Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Wacko Central

jerry warner · Guest

ha ha ha

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

some SF thinks the waterside theory is contradicted by Gona

the poor boy doesn>t know:
- that Gona = river
- that chimps use stone tools (Oldowan-like)
- that waterside butchering of carcasses is a preadaptation to slow diving
for shellfish
- that the first undoubted fossil Homo come from Mojokerto & Dmanisi 1.8 Ma
- that the seaside dispersals of Homo were probably early Pleistocene
- that the first heavy skeletons in the fossil record are Pleistocene
- etc.etc.

conclusion: SFs are stupid stupid stupid

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 13, 7:26 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]some SF thinks the waterside theory is contradicted by Gona

the poor boy doesn>t know:
- that Gona = river
[/quote]
Liar.

FACT:
"sand bed ephemeral stream..." Roche (1999:87).
Roche did not say "bovid butchered on a river bank"
anywhere in that paper. "Ephemeral" means dry most of the year.

[quote]- that chimps use stone tools (Oldowan-like)
[/quote]
Liar. A rock is not a tool, you idiot.
http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/cgi-bin/lookup.cgi?category=&where=headword&terms=tool
tool
CATEGORY: artifact
DEFINITION: Any existing physical object that is in some way fashioned
or altered by humans and employed for a specific task or purpose.
Tools made of stone included of axes, adzes, arrowheads, spearheads,
daggers, knife blades, scrapers, borers, burins, picks, etc. The first
tools date back to c 2,600,000 years ago, the beginning of the
Paleolithic Age, and are different-sized pebble tools called choppers.
The chopper was the only tool used by man for almost 2,000,000 years,
until the appearance of the hand ax, a superior (and sharper) version
of the chopper.

[quote]- that waterside butchering of carcasses is a preadaptation to slow diving
for shellfish
[/quote]
Liar.

[quote]- that the first undoubted fossil Homo come from Mojokerto & Dmanisi 1.8 Ma
[/quote]
Liar.

[quote]- that the seaside dispersals of Homo were probably early Pleistocene
[/quote]
Liar.

[quote]- that the first heavy skeletons in the fossil record are Pleistocene
[/quote]
Great, thanks.

Mujin wrote:
[quote][...]
"Conclusions: Running, a weight-bearing exercise, is associated with more
favorable geometric and biomechanical characteristics in relation to bone
strength, compared with the weight supported activities of swimming and
cycling. Differences may reflect skeletal adaptations to the specific
mechanical-loading patterns inherent in these sports"
http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-200204000-
00018.htm;jsessionid=HJxhg51XTP76vm2Q2tjGNy9JTQCZFcv3xHG8Qh2XL470Kzjk7kPB!-
1601909834!181195629!8091!-1
Clearly weight bearing, high impact activity increases cortical thickness
and decreases medullary cavity sizes. More importantly:
[/quote]
See also
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10949001
Total and regional bone density in male runners, cyclists, and
controls.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 32(8):1373-1377, August
2000.
...
Conclusion: Running is associated with increased bone density,
particularly in
the leg, whereas cycling is associated with a mild decrease in bone
density in
the spine. In athletes who do both, running exerts a stronger
influence than
cycling.

conclusion: wetapes are stupid stupid stupid

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

[quote]some SF thinks the waterside theory is contradicted by Gona
the poor boy doesn>t know:
- that Gona = river

Liar.
FACT:
"sand bed ephemeral stream..." Roche (1999:87).
Roche did not say "bovid butchered on a river bank"
anywhere in that paper. "Ephemeral" means dry most of the year.
[/quote]
My little boy:
At Gona, Ethiopia, 2.5 Ma-old stone tools were deposited in ³floodplain
environments, close to margins of channels that carried the volcanic cobbles
used as raw materials for tool manufacture² (Semaw et al. 1997: 333).
Nearby, in the Hata Member of the Bouri Formation, hominid fossils of a
similar age to the Gona deposits were discovered in sediments containing
sandstone with bivalve and gastropod shells ³deposited by fluvial processes
associated with floodplains along distributary channels close to a shallow
fluctuating lake² (de Heinzelin et al. 1999: 625). This Member also reveals
evidence of cut and percussion marks on bones of medium and large-sized
bovids, though stone tools have so far not been discovered.

You>re just stupid stupid stupid, olson little boy.

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 14, 1:57 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]some SF thinks the waterside theory is contradicted by Gona
the poor boy doesn>t know:
- that Gona = river
Liar.
FACT:
"sand bed ephemeral stream..." Roche (1999:87).
Roche did not say "bovid butchered on a river bank"
anywhere in that paper. "Ephemeral" means dry most of the year.

My little boy:
[/quote]
You senile pervert, why don>t you learn to read English?

[quote]At Gona, Ethiopia, 2.5 Ma-old stone tools were deposited in ³floodplain
environments, close to margins of channels that carried the volcanic cobbles
used as raw materials for tool manufacture² (Semaw et al. 1997: 333).
[/quote]
A flood plain does not mean the tools were deposited
duringod stage, you moron.
The cobbles could have been there for thousands of years before they
were used.

[quote]Nearby, in the Hata Member of the Bouri Formation, hominid fossils of a
similar age to the Gona deposits were discovered in sediments containing
sandstone with bivalve and gastropod shells ³deposited by fluvial processes
associated with floodplains along distributary channels close to a shallow
fluctuating lake² (de Heinzelin et al. 1999: 625).
[/quote]
Similar is not the same as, you idiot.

[quote]This Member also reveals
evidence of cut and percussion marks on bones of medium and large-sized
bovids, though stone tools have so far not been discovered.
[/quote]
They have been discoverd elsewhere in the same area, closest to
ostrich eggshells, NOT
gastrod shells, you lying jerk.

"However, the tortoise bones and ostrich-egg fragments are more
closely associated with the
lithic artifacts; their systematic presents in both Lokalalie sites
may show a possible hominid
collecting strategy (Roche 1999)."

You>re just a lying wetloon.

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

Savanna Fool>s arguments:
[quote]You senile pervert, why don>t you learn to read English?

you idiot.

you lying jerk.

You>re just a lying wetloon.
[/quote]
poor little boy...

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 14, 4:56 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]Savanna Fool>s arguments:

You senile pervert, why don>t you learn to read English?
you idiot.
you lying jerk.
You>re just a lying wetloon.

poor little boy...
[/quote]
Pervert, I>m just being nice, here is what the experts say about you:

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."

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 15, 1:03 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]Savanna Fool>s argumpents:

You senile pervert, why don>t you learn to read English?
you idiot.
you lying jerk.
You>re just a lying wetloon.
poor little boy...

SF:

Pervert, I>m just being nice, here is what the experts say about you:

Prof.Tobias:
[/quote]
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
"Although the idea that australopithecines could be the relatives of
chimps and gorillas
rather than of humans has been put forward by others previously
(Edelstein, 1987; Kleindienst,
1975; Goodman, 1982) and more recently (Easteal & Herbert, 1997),
Verhaegen>s reasoning
was considered as idiosyncratic by most of the participants. Prof.
Tobias urged to state that
the present-day fossil hominid record consists of hundreds of
different well-documented individuals
and that there is general agreement that australopithecines and Homo
have more in common than
australopithecines and Pan/Gorilla."

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

Savanna Fool>s argumpents:
[quote]You senile pervert, why don>t you learn to read English?
you idiot.
you lying jerk.
You>re just a lying wetloon.

poor little boy...
[/quote]
SF:
[quote]Pervert, I>m just being nice, here is what the experts say about you:
[/quote]
Prof.Tobias:

Elaine Morgan had been piecing together a nr of other arguments against the
SH, based on some anatomical, biochemical & physiololigical data of modern
humans, much of which was collected by Belgium>s Dr Marc Verhaegen, which
contrast sharply with the traits in present-day animals that are truly
adapted to savannah life. As examples, modern humans lack sun-reflecting
fur & are virtually hairless. The cooling system in our skin is quite unfit
for hot, dry, exposed environments: we have numerous sweat glands , we waste
water & sodium - not very suitable for life on the savannah. Our ability to
concentrate our urine is poor & too low and if ever our earliest ancestors
were savannah dwellers, we must have been the worst, the most profligate
urinators there. Adapted savannah-dwellers need to drink more water at a
time, but most humans are not able to drink much at a time. The quantity of
our subcutaneous fat, which would insulate us against heat loss, is never
found in truly savannah-adapted animals.
In our bodily functions, chemistry & microscopical anatomy, we should be
hopeless as savannah-dwellers. So Marc Verhaegen & Elaine Morgan, in her
remarkable book, The Scars of Evolution, came to the same conclusion that we
had reached from quite different lines of evidence: the old Savannah
Hypothesis was not tenable. All former savannah supporters must recant ,
this I did in London. It was an exciting moment - living through a change of
paradigm. Max Planck, the German physicist & Nobel laureate, once wrote
these words on the replacement of an outworn paradigm: "A new scientific
truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the
light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows that is familiar with it."
That must be one of the masterpieces of cynicism on the scientific process.
Paradigm changes, I like to think, flow overwhelmingly from new evidence
and, where the evidence is sound and even irresistible, they should be
embraced just as lief by the old as by the young. It was 3 weeks after my
71th birthday and I went on to declare, "A change of paradigm shakes us up;
it rejuvenates us; and, this above all, it prevents mental fossilisation -
and that is good for all of us."

RichTravsky · Guest

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
some SF thinks the waterside theory is contradicted by Gona

the poor boy doesn>t know:
- that Gona = river
- that chimps use stone tools (Oldowan-like)
- that waterside butchering of carcasses is a preadaptation to slow diving
for shellfish
[/quote]
Not true. Unless you can explain how ->

[quote]- that the first undoubted fossil Homo come from Mojokerto & Dmanisi 1.8 Ma
[/quote]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4GFCSW2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=94fbe698d4f77c3db6d3a23fc9b1ebd4

or http://tinyurl.com/5fdnf3

First occurrence of early Homo in the Nachukui Formation (West Turkana,
Kenya) at 2.3-2.4 Myr

Received 3 March 2004; accepted 25 March 2005. Available online 20 June 2005.
Abstract
...
In 2002 a new palaeoanthropological site (LA1greek small letter alpha), 100
meters south of the LA1 archaeological site, produced a first right lower
molar of a juvenile hominid (KNM-WT 42718). The relative small size of the
crown, its marked MD elongation and BL reduction, the relative position of
the cusps, the lack of a C6 and the mild expression of a protostylid,
reinforced by metrical analyses, demonstrate the distinctiveness of this tooth
compared with Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus and
Paranthropus boisei, and its similarity to early Homo. The LA1greek small
letter alpha site lies 2.2 m above the Ekalalei Tuff which is slightly younger
than Tuff F dated to 2.34 ± 0.04 Myr. This juvenile specimen represents the
oldest occurrence of the genus Homo in West Turkana.
...

[quote]- that the seaside dispersals of Homo were probably early Pleistocene
- that the first heavy skeletons in the fossil record are Pleistocene
- etc.etc.

conclusion: SFs are stupid stupid stupid
[/quote]
conclusion - Marc is stupid stupid stupid

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 28, 4:17 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]savanna fool doesn>t know the difference between habilis & erectus:
[/quote]
Says who, the brainless wetloon that thinks mountain beavers are
semiaquatic?

Learn to tell time....

Homo, 2.4 Ma at Chemeron, Kenya ( Hill et al. 1992)

1470 is not 2.4 million years old.

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

savanna fool doesn>t know the difference between habilis & erectus:

Op 28-07-2008 06:37, in artikel 488D4D1F.DF790004@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:

[quote]Marc Verhaegen wrote:

some SF thinks the waterside theory is contradicted by Gona

the poor boy doesn>t know:
- that Gona = river
- that chimps use stone tools (Oldowan-like)
- that waterside butchering of carcasses is a preadaptation to slow diving
for shellfish

Not true. Unless you can explain how -

- that the first undoubted fossil Homo come from Mojokerto & Dmanisi 1.8 Ma

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4GFCSW2-1&_user
=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_url
Version=0&_userid=10&md5=94fbe698d4f77c3db6d3a23fc9b1ebd4

or http://tinyurl.com/5fdnf3

First occurrence of early Homo in the Nachukui Formation (West Turkana,
Kenya) at 2.3-2.4 Myr

Received 3 March 2004; accepted 25 March 2005. Available online 20 June 2005.
Abstract
...
In 2002 a new palaeoanthropological site (LA1greek small letter alpha), 100
meters south of the LA1 archaeological site, produced a first right lower
molar of a juvenile hominid (KNM-WT 42718). The relative small size of the
crown, its marked MD elongation and BL reduction, the relative position of
the cusps, the lack of a C6 and the mild expression of a protostylid,
reinforced by metrical analyses, demonstrate the distinctiveness of this
tooth
compared with Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus and
Paranthropus boisei, and its similarity to early Homo. The LA1greek small
letter alpha site lies 2.2 m above the Ekalalei Tuff which is slightly
younger
than Tuff F dated to 2.34 ± 0.04 Myr. This juvenile specimen represents the
oldest occurrence of the genus Homo in West Turkana.
...

- that the seaside dispersals of Homo were probably early Pleistocene
- that the first heavy skeletons in the fossil record are Pleistocene
- etc.etc.

conclusion: SFs are stupid stupid stupid

conclusion - Marc is stupid stupid stupid[/quote]

Lee Olsen · Guest

On Jul 28, 2:36 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
[quote]Savanna Fools thinks ER-1470 is Homo...
[/quote]
Who said that, you lying jackass? Too stupid to make a direcdt
quote???

[quote]
savanna fool doesn>t know the difference between habilis & erectus:
[/quote]
Wetoon now thinks the only hominid is 1470.

[quote]
Says who, the brainless wetloon that thinks mountain beavers are
semiaquatic?

Learn to tell time....

Homo, 2.4 Ma at Chemeron, Kenya ( Hill et al. 1992)

1470 is not 2.4 million years old.

My little boy, just google "Bromage 1470"...
[/quote]
Pervert, to repeat, since you were too dense to get it the first
time---1470 is not 2.4 million years old, can>t you count?
So who cares what 1470 is?

Marc Verhaegen · Guest

Savanna Fools thinks ER-1470 is Homo...

[quote]savanna fool doesn>t know the difference between habilis & erectus:

Says who, the brainless wetloon that thinks mountain beavers are
semiaquatic?

Learn to tell time....

Homo, 2.4 Ma at Chemeron, Kenya ( Hill et al. 1992)

1470 is not 2.4 million years old.
[/quote]
My little boy, just google "Bromage 1470"...


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
Page 1 of 1